Country report : non-discrimination : Serbia 2017.
Date: 2017-09-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Subjects: Serbia, age discrimination, anti-discriminatory measure, discrimination based on disability, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, equal treatment, ethnic discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination, social policy

Serbia 

2017 

Including summaries in 
English, French and 
German 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 
Directorate D — Non-discrimination and Roma coordination 
Unit JUST/D1 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Country report  

Non-discrimination 

Serbia 

Ivana Krstić 

Reporting period 1 January 2016 – 31 December 2016 

2017 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-79-68970-3   

doi:10.2838/57684 

DS-02-17-570-3A-N 

© European Union, 2017 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Serbia – 2017 

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 5 
RÉSUMÉ ............................................................................................................ 12 
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG ........................................................................................ 20 
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 28 
GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................. 32 
1 
THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION .................................................... 33 
2 
2.1  Grounds of unlawful discrimination explicitly covered ................................ 33 

2.1.1  Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the 

directives ................................................................................. 34 
2.1.2  Multiple discrimination ............................................................... 35 
Assumed and associated discrimination ....................................... 36 
2.1.3 
2.2  Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) ...................................................... 37 
2.2.1 
Situation testing ....................................................................... 38 
Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) ................................................... 39 
Statistical evidence ................................................................... 40 
2.3.1 
2.4  Harassment (Article 2(3)) ...................................................................... 41 
2.5 
Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) ................................................ 42 
2.6  Reasonable accommodation duties (Article 2(2)(b)(ii) and Article 5 Directive 

2.3 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 43 
PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE ............................................................ 49 
3.1  Personal scope ..................................................................................... 49 

3.1.1 

EU and non-EU nationals (Recital 13 and Article 3(2) Directive 
2000/43 and Recital 12 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/78) ........... 49 
3.1.2  Natural and legal persons (Recital 16 Directive 2000/43) ............... 49 
Private and public sector including public bodies (Article 3(1)) ........ 49 
3.1.3 
3.2  Material scope ...................................................................................... 50 
Employment, self-employment and occupation ............................. 50 

3.2.1 
3.2.2  Conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to 

3.2.3 

3.2.4 

occupation, including selection criteria, recruitment conditions and 
promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the 
professional hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a)) ........................................ 51 
Employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissals 
(Article 3(1)(c)) ........................................................................ 51 
Access to all types and to all levels of vocational guidance, vocational 
training, advanced vocational training and retraining, including 
practical work experience (Article 3(1)(b)) ................................... 52 

3.2.5  Membership of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers or 

3.2.6 

employers, or any organisation whose members carry on a particular 
profession, including the benefits provided for by such organisations 
(Article 3(1)(d)) ........................................................................ 52 
Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 
3(1)(e) Directive 2000/43) ......................................................... 53 
Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) .................... 54 
Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) ............................... 54 
Access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the 
public (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) .................................... 59 
3.2.10  Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) ................................. 62 
EXCEPTIONS ............................................................................................. 65 
4.1  Genuine and determining occupational requirements (Article 4) .................. 65 
4.2  Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) Directive 

3.2.7 
3.2.8 
3.2.9 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 65 

4.3  Armed forces and other specific occupations (Article 3(4) and Recital 18 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 67 
4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) ................................................... 67 
4.5  Work-related family benefits (Recital 22 Directive 2000/78) ....................... 68 

3 

3 

4 

 
4.6  Health and safety (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) .................................... 69 
4.7  Exceptions related to discrimination on the ground of age (Article 6 Directive 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 70 
4.7.1  Direct discrimination ................................................................. 70 
4.7.2 

Special conditions for young people, older workers and persons with 
caring responsibilities ................................................................ 71 
4.7.3  Minimum and maximum age requirements ................................... 72 
4.7.4  Retirement ............................................................................... 72 
4.7.5  Redundancy ............................................................................. 73 
4.8  Public security, public order, criminal offences, protection of health, protection 
of the rights and freedoms of others (Article 2(5), Directive 2000/78) ......... 74 
4.9  Any other exceptions ............................................................................. 74 
POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 
2000/78) .................................................................................................. 75 
REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT ................................................................. 77 
6.1 
Judicial and/or administrative procedures (Article 7 Directive 2000/43, Article 
9 Directive 2000/78) ............................................................................. 77 

6.2  Legal standing and associations (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/43, Article 9(2) 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 83 
6.3  Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78).. 85 
6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) ...... 86 
6.5  Sanctions and remedies (Article 15 Directive 2000/43, Article 17 Directive 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 86 

5 

6 

7 

8 

BODIES FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUAL TREATMENT (Article 13 Directive 
2000/43) .................................................................................................. 90 
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES........................................................................ 96 
8.1  Dissemination of information, dialogue with NGOs and between social partners96 
8.2  Compliance (Article 14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78)...... 98 
9 
COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL ....................................................... 99 
10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICES ..................................................................... 100 
11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES ................................................ 102 
11.1  Potential breaches of the directives (if any) ............................................ 102 
11.2  Other issues of concern ....................................................................... 103 
12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2016 ............................................................ 104 
12.1  Legislative amendments ...................................................................... 104 
12.2  Case law ............................................................................................ 105 
ANNEX 1: TABLE OF KEY NATIONAL ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION ... 108 
ANNEX 2: TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ..................................... 111 

4 

 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  

1. Introduction 

The  Republic  of  Serbia  is  a  constitutional,  multi-party,  parliamentary  democracy.  The 
multi-party National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia (NARS) was established in 1991. 
The 10th legislature commenced its work on 16 April 2014 and is notable for the fact that 
the leading party has a majority in the Parliament, which shapes and influences current 
parliamentary work in Serbia. 

According  to  the  last  census  in  2002,  the  Republic  of  Serbia  has  7 498 001  inhabitants. 
Serbs comprise 82.86 % of the population, Hungarians 3.91 %, Bosniaks 1.81 %, Roma 
1.44 %,  Yugoslavs  1.08 %,  Croatians  0.94 %,  Montenegrins  0.92 %,  Albanians  0.82 %, 
Slovaks  0.79 %,  Vlachs  0.53 %,  Romanians  0.46 %,  Macedonians  0.34 %,  Bulgarians 
and  Bunjevci  0.27 %  each,  Muslims  0.26 %,1  Rusyns  0.21 %,  Slovenes  and  Ukrainians 
0.07 %  each,  Gorani  0.06 %,  Germans  0.05 %  and  Russians  and  Czechs  0.03 %  each. 
The  majority  of  the  population  of  Serbia  is  of  the  Christian  Orthodox  faith  (84.98 %), 
followed by Roman Catholics (5.48 %), Muslims (3.2 %) and Protestants (1.08 %). Other 
religions are also present in Serbia. 

2. Main legislation 

The Constitution of Serbia,2 adopted in 2006, contains a broad catalogue of human rights 
and proclaims equality and prohibits discrimination (Article 21, par. 3).  

Serbia introduced a set of anti-discrimination legislation, which is almost aligned with the 
two  EU  directives  from  2000.3  In  its  progress  report  for  Serbia  for  2016,  the  European 
Commission acknowledges that Serbian non-discrimination legislation is generally in line 
with  European  standards,  nevertheless  amendments  to  bring  it  fully  in  line  with  the 
acquis  remain  to  be  adopted.4  In  its  report  for  2015,  the  Commission  specified  that 
amendments are expected, in particular with regard to the scope of exceptions from the 
principle of equal treatment, the definition of indirect discrimination and the obligation to 
provide reasonable accommodation for disabled employees.5 

In April 2006, the first anti-discrimination law was adopted: the Law on the Prevention of 
Discrimination  against  Persons  with  Disabilities  (LPDPD),6  supplemented  by  the  Law  on 
the Professional Rehabilitation and Employment of Persons with Disabilities (LPREPD).7 In 
2016, the LPDPD was amended,8 stipulating in Article 34, para. 3, that public authorities 

1   People can state ‘Muslim’ as their ethnic identity in Serbia, while the same term can be used in a context of 

religious identity. 

2   Serbia, Constitution of Serbia (Ustav Republike Srbije), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 

98/2006, 10 November 2006. 

3   Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between 
persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, Official Journal L 180, 19 July 2000; Council Directive 
2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and 
occupation, Official Journal L 303, 2 December 2000. 

4   Commission Staff Working Document, Serbia 2016 Report, SWD(2016) 361 final, Brussels, 9 November 

2016, p. 62. 

5  European Commission, Serbia 2015 Report, Brussels, 10 November 2015, p.56; text available at 

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2015/20151110_report_serbia.pdf, last accessed on 
27 March 2016. 

6   Serbia, Law on the Prevention of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities (Zakon o sprečavanju 

diskriminacije osoba sa invaliditetom), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 33/2006, 13/2016, 17 
April 2006. 

7   Serbia, Law on the Professional Rehabilitation and Employment of Persons with Disabilities (Zakon o 
profesionalnoj rehabilitaciji i zapošljavanju osoba sa invaliditetom), Official Gazette of the Republic of 
Serbia, no. 36/2009, 32/2013, 17 April 2006. 

8   Serbia, Amendments to the Law on the Prevention of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities 

(Izmene i dopune Zakona o sprečavanju diskriminacije osoba sa invaliditetom), Official Gazette of the 
Republic of Serbia, no. 13/16, 19 February 2016. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
are  obliged  to  allow  the  use  of  personal  facsimile  signature  stamps  by  people  with 
disabilities,  especially  those  who  are  blind  or  visually  impaired,  for  the  signing  of  legal 
documents.  Article  34a  extends  this  duty  to  other  legal  entities  and  individuals.  Some 
laws have also been adopted to further support the LPDPD, such as the Law on the Use 
of Guide Dogs9 and the Law on the Use of Sign Language.10 

Serbia adopted its first comprehensive anti-discrimination law in March 2009. The Law on 
the  Prohibition  of  Discrimination  (LPD)11  was  an  important  milestone  in  securing  basic 
human  rights  in  Serbia  through  the  establishment  of  systematic  law  on  anti-
discrimination.  It  prohibits  a  wide  range  of  discriminatory  actions.  In  addition,  all  the 
grounds  of  discrimination  provided  in  EU  equality  law  are  covered  in  the  LPD  and  are 
significantly  expanded.12  This  law  also  applies  to  discrimination  against  migrants.    The 
Law  on  Asylum  applies  to  asylum  seekers,  refugees  and  persons  who  are  granted 
temporary  protection.13  It  guarantees,  among  other  things,  the  right  to  education, 
accommodation, social security, healthcare and legal aid. In December 2016, eight years 
after  the  adoption  of  the  Law  on  Asylum,  the  Government  adopted  a  Decree  on  the 
Manner  of  Involving  Persons  Recognised  as  Refugees  in  Social,  Cultural  and  Economic 
Life (Decree).14 The Decree foresees assistance to various areas crucial to the integration 
of refugees and prescribes that an integration plan will be adopted for each refugee.  

Furthermore,  the  Law  on  the  Protection  of  the  Rights  and  Freedoms  of  National 
Minorities15  regulates  the  way  in  which  the  rights  of  people  belonging  to  national 
minorities  are  implemented.  It  enables  people  belonging  to  national  minorities  to 
exercise  their  constitutional  rights  in  a  democratic  political  milieu,  individually  or  in 
community with other members of their ethnic group. The Law defines national minorities 
as  citizens,  who  are  numerically  sufficiently  representative  and  belong  to  a  group  of 
residents  with  a  long-term  and  firm  bond  with  the  territory  of  a  state  and  who  are 
‘possess characteristics such as language, culture, national or ethnic affiliation, origin or 
confession, differentiating them from the majority of the population and whose members 
are distinguished by efforts to collectively nurture their common identity, including their 
culture,  tradition,  language  or  religion’.  This  definition  excludes  migrants  from  its 
application. 

Many other laws also contain anti-discrimination provisions, e.g. the Labour Law,16 which 
prohibits  discrimination  in  employment,  the  Law  on  the  Fundamentals  of  the  Education 
System,17  which  introduces  inclusive  education,  the  Law  on  Youth,18  the  Law  on 
Preschool Education19 and the Law on Churches and Religious Organisations.20  

9   Serbia, Law on the Use of Guide Dogs (Zakon o kretanju uz pomoć psa vodiča), Official Gazette of the 

Republic of Serbia, no. 29/2015, 31 March 2015. 

10   Serbia, Law on the Use of Sign Language (Zakon o upotrebi znakovnog jezika), Official Gazette of the 

Republic of Serbia, no. 38/2015, 7 May 2015. 

11   Serbia, Law the on Prohibition of Discrimination (Zakon o zabrani diskriminacije), Official Gazette of the 

Republic of Serbia, no. 22/2009, 13/2016, 26 March 2009. 

12   The LPD contains an open clause and explicilty mentions the following grounds: race, skin colour, ancestry, 

citizenship, national affiliation or ethnic origin, language, religious or political beliefs, gender, gender 
identity, sexual orientation, financial position, birth, genetic characteristics, health, disability, marital and 
family status, previous convictions, age, appearance, membership of political, trade union and other 
organisations. 

13   Serbia, Law on Asylum (Zakon o azilu), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 109/2007, 28 

November 2007. 

14   Decree on the Manner of Involving Persons Recognised as Refugees in Social, Cultural and Economic Life, 

Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 101/2016, 16 December 2016. It only refers to recognised 
refugees and does not explicitly cover beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. 

15   Serbia, Law on the Protection of the Rights and Freedoms of National Minorities (Zakon o zaštiti prava i 

sloboda nacionalnih manjina), Official Gazette of the Republic of FRY, no. 11/2002, Official Gazette of SM, 
no. 1/2003, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, 172/2009, 27 February 2003. 

16   Serbia, Labour Law (Zakon o radu) Official Journal of the Republic of Serbia, no. 24/2005, 61/2005, 

54/2009, 32/2013, no. 75/2014, 15 March 2005. 

17   Serbia, Law on the Fundamentals of the Education System (Zakon o osnovama sistema 

obrazovanja i vaspitanja), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 72/09, 52/2011, 55/2013, 35/2015 
authentic interpretation, 68/2015, 62/2016 – CC decision, 31 August 2009. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  addition,  criminal  law  protection  against  discrimination  is  regulated  by  the  Criminal 
Code21 which provides for several criminal offences in connection with the prohibition of 
discrimination: Article 128 (violation of equality), Article 129 (violation of the right to use 
a  language  or  alphabet)  and  Article  387  (prohibition  of  racial  and  other  discrimination). 
The Law on Misdemeanours22 regulates the procedure and conditions and implementation 
of  misdemeanour  charges.  Amendments  to  the  Criminal  Code  expanded  the  prohibited 
grounds  of  discrimination  to  disability,  sexual  orientation  and  gender  identity  in  Article 
128, which defines the violation of equality.23 

The  Strategy  for  the  Prevention  of  and  Protection  from  Discrimination  was  adopted  in 
2013 and supplemented by the Action Plan in October 2014, the implementation of which 
was successfully initiated in 2015. In 2016, the Strategy for the Social Inclusion of Roma 
in  the  Republic  of  Serbia  for  the  period  2016-2025  was  adopted.24  This  strategic 
document aims to intensify the work of institutions at the national and local level, during 
a  nine-year  period,  regarding  issues  of  social  inclusion  for  Roma  and  combating  Roma 
discrimination, as well as creating conditions for full access to human rights for persons 
of  the  Roma  nationality.  The  document  covers  five  priority  areas,  namely  education, 
housing, employment, healthcare and social protection. 

3. Main principles and definitions 

The  LPD  recognises  seven  forms  of  discrimination:  direct  and  indirect  discrimination, 
violation  of  the  principle  of  equal  rights  and  obligations,  the  prevention  of  calling  to 
account,25  association  for  the  purpose  of  discriminating,  hate  speech,  harassment  and 
humiliating treatment and severe forms of discrimination. 

The definition of direct discrimination is almost in line with the definition given in the EU 
directives, but is limited to less favourable treatment and does not cover detriment. The 
definition of indirect discrimination doesn’t contain the conditional wording (‘would’) and 
can  thus  be  interpreted  as  being  limited  to  the  actual  occurrence  of  disadvantage, 
making it impossible to challenge neutral provisions before they incur disadvantages for 
actual victims. It also fails to use the wording ‘an apparently neutral provision, criterion 
or practice’ which plausibly explains this phenomenon. It is not clear why the violation of 
the  principle  of  equal  rights  is  recognised  as  a  special  form  of  discrimination,  as  it  is 
either  direct  or  indirect  discrimination  and  is  used  as  a  test  of  discrimination.  The 
prohibition  of  ‘calling  to  account’  is,  in  other  words,  ‘victimisation’,  but  this  provision 
must  be  aligned  with  the  EU  law,  in  order  to  include  express  protection  from  dismissal. 
Hate  speech  is  ambiguous,  using  the  wording ‘and  in  other  ways’  and  is  not  recognised 
as  a  special  form  of  discrimination  in  the  Racial  Equality  and  Employment  Equality 
Directives.  The  LPD  forbids  association  for  the  purpose  of  exercising  discrimination  for, 
among  others,  inciting  nationally,  racially,  religiously  or  otherwise  motivated  hatred, 

18   Serbia, Law on Youth (Zakon o mladima), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 50/011, 8 July 

2011. 

19   Serbia, Law on Preschool Education (Zakon o predškolskom vaspitanju i obrazovanju), Official Gazette of 

the Republic of Serbia, no. 18/010, 3 May 2010. 

20   Serbia, Law on Churches and Religious Communities (Zakon o crkvama i verskim zajednicama), Official 

Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 36/2006, 27 April 2006. 

21   Serbia, Criminal Code (Krivični zakonik), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 85/2005, 88/2005 - 

corr., 107/2005 - corr., 72/2009, 111/2009, 121/2012, 104/2013, 108/2014, October 6, 2005. 
22   Serbia, Law on Misdemeanours (Zakon o prekršajima), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 

65/2013, 13/2016, 25 July 2013.  

23   Serbia, Article 9 of the Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code (Zakon o izmenama i dopunama Krivicnog 
zakonika), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 94/2016, 24 November 2016. Other prohibited 
grounds are: national or ethnic origin, race or religion, political or other opinion, sex, language, education, 
social status, social origin, property and other personal characteristics. 

24   Serbia, Strategy for the Social Inclusion of Roma for the period 2016-2025 (Strategija za socijalno 

uključivanje Roma i Romkinja u Republici Srbiji za period od 2016. do 2025. godine), Official Gazette of the 
Republic of Serbia, no. 26/16, 10 March 2016. 

25   Victimisation is known as ‘calling to account’ in Serbian law. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
divisions  or  enmity.  Instruction  to  discriminate  is  mentioned  in  the  LPD,  but  is  not 
defined. Harassment is recognised as a special form of discrimination taken together with 
humiliating  treatment.  However,  this  article  is  confusing  as  humiliating  treatment  is  a 
possible element of harassment, while the term ‘harassment’ itself is not defined. 

The  LPD  allows  some  exceptions  and  exemptions  from  the  equality  clause.  Thus, 
‘measures  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  achieving  the  full  equality,  protection  and 
progress  of  an  individual  or  a  group  of  persons  in  an  unequal  position  shall  not  be 
considered  to  constitute  discrimination’  (Article  14).  Indirect  discrimination  can  be 
justified  if  there  is  a  lawful  objective  and  the  means  of  achieving  that  objective  are 
appropriate and necessary. Different treatment, exclusion or giving priority on account of 
the  specific  character  of  a  job  is  allowed  if  an  individual’s  personal  characteristic 
constitutes a genuine and decisive precondition for performing the job, and the objective 
to  be  achieved  is  justified.  In  addition,  the  conduct  of  religious  officials,  which  is  in 
accordance  with  a  religious  doctrine,  beliefs  or  the  objectives  of  churches  and  religious 
organisations  entered  in  the  register  of  religious  organisations,  in  accordance  with  the 
law  regulating  the  freedom  of  religion  and  the  status  of  churches  and  religious 
organisations,  is  not  considered  to  be  discrimination.  This  article  is  problematic  as  it 
provides  a  blanket  exemption  for  religious  officials  who  can  discriminate,  if  this  is  what 
their religious doctrines require or allow.  

One of the most far-reaching provisions of the Employment Equality Directive is Article 5, 
which  provides  an  obligation  to  make  reasonable  accommodation  for  people  with 
disabilities. This requirement is not included in the LPD and does not cover grounds other 
than  disability.  On  the  other  hand,  the  LPDPD  provides  several  justifications  for 
discrimination,  although  many  of  them  are  recognised  as  positive  measures,  defined  in 
Article 8. However, the most problematic justification is provided in Article 19, para. 2 of 
the LPREPD, which allows the organisation of special classes for children who do not have 
sufficient intellectual capacity to attend mainstream courses. 

In Serbia multiple discrimination is recognised as a severe form of discrimination, which 
means  that  more  severe  penalties  should  be  imposed  in  cases  of  multiple  or 
intersectional discrimination.26  

4. Material scope 

The  LPD  applies  in  all  areas  of  public  and  private  life,  as  Article  2,  para.  1,  defines 
discrimination as ‘any unwarranted discrimination or unequal treatment’, which is based 
on  personal  characteristics.  However,  the  LPD  recognises  some  special  cases  of 
discrimination,  such  as  discrimination  in  the  course  of  proceedings  conducted  before 
public administration bodies, discrimination in the provision of public services and in the 
use  of  premises  and  spaces,  discrimination  in  employment  and  in  education.  Thus,  the 
material scope of the LPD goes beyond the areas covered by the two EU directives.  

The  prohibition  of  discrimination  in  employment  applies  to  both  the  public  and  private 
sectors. 

The  LPD  does  not  cover  occupational  pensions,  social  advantages  and  self-employment 
and it is unclear whether it covers social protection and housing. Although certain other 
laws  regulate  some  of  these  issues,  such  as  self-employment  or  housing,  these 
provisions should be included in the LPD.  

The LPD mentions only access to services and not expressly access to goods.  

26   Article 13 of the LPD. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5. Enforcing the law 

Civil  proceedings  in  discrimination  cases  are  regulated  by  three  anti-discrimination laws 
(LPD, LPDPD and the  Law  on  Gender  Equality). The general rule is that provisions from 
general litigation apply unless it is explicitly regulated differently (lex specialis). However, 
it  was  necessary  to  create  a  special  procedure  for  discrimination  cases  designed  to 
ensure the provision of effective and efficient civil protection from discrimination, which is 
in accordance with international and European standards in this area.  

The LPDPD provides specific procedural provisions in order to enhance court procedure in 
cases  of  discrimination  against  people  with  disabilities.  However,  the  LPD  sets  out  the 
procedure for initiating civil court cases in case of discrimination which can be initiated by 
anyone  who  claims  to  have  suffered  discriminatory  treatment.  It  includes  a  provision  in 
relation  to  the  court’s  jurisdiction  for  victims  of  discrimination.  The  LPD  recognises 
temporary  measures  and  the  court  must  decide  about  requests  for  them  within  three 
days. It provides that the proceedings must be conducted with urgency (Article 41, para. 
3). In addition, Article 45 of the LPD shifts the burden of proof from the complainant to 
the respondent. 

Article  41  of  the  LPD  provides  that  anyone  who  claims  to  be  a  victim  of  discriminatory 
treatment has the right to initiate a lawsuit. The complainant may request: 1) that a ban 
be imposed on an action that poses a threat of discrimination, a ban on proceeding with 
a  discriminatory  action  or  a  ban  on  repeating  a  discriminatory  action;  2)  that  the  court 
should  establish  that  the  defendant  has  treated  the  complainant  or  another  party  in  a 
discriminatory  manner;  3)  that  steps  be  taken  to  redress  the  consequences  of  the 
discriminatory  treatment;  4)  compensation  for  pecuniary  and  non-pecuniary  damage; 
and  5)  that  the  judgment  be  published.  Furthermore,  Article  46  provides  that  a  lawsuit 
may  be  initiated  by  the  Commissioner  and  also  by  an  organisation  engaged  in  the 
protection of human rights or the rights of a certain group of people. 

Affirmative action measures are expressly allowed in the Serbian Constitution (Article 21, 
para. 4) and the LPD (Article 14) and are mainly applied in relation to women in politics, 
Roma in education and people with disabilities in employment. 

6. Equality bodies 

The institution of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality was established by the LPD 
as an independent, autonomous and specialised public body which has a wide mandate in 
the area of the promotion of equality and anti-discrimination in all spheres of society. It 
has two  main responsibilities: the prevention of and protection from discrimination. The 
Commissioner’s  Office  has  a  range  of  measures  at  its  disposal,  but  from  the  position  of 
the  victim  of  discrimination  the  most  relevant  are  to  receive  and  consider  complaints 
regarding  discrimination,  to  initiate  strategic  litigation  and  to  file  offence  and  criminal 
charges.27 

The procedure of applying to the Commissioner is regulated in Articles 35 to 40 and the 
general  rule  is  that  the  provisions  of  the  law  regulating  general  administrative 
proceedings  apply  accordingly  to  procedures  involving  the  Commissioner.  A  complaint 
must be forwarded within 15 days from its submission to the alleged violator who has 15 
days to respond to it. The Commissioner can propose mediation if both parties agree to 

27   The Commissioner can also provide information to the person lodging a complaint and can recommend 
mediation; submits an annual and special reports to the National Assembly; warns the public about the 
most frequent, typical and severe cases of discrimination; monitors the implementation of laws and other 
regulations; initiates the passing or amending of regulations; provides opinions concerning the provisions of 
draft laws and other regulations; establishes and maintains cooperation with different bodies and 
organisations; and recommends measures to public administration bodies and other institutions aimed at 
ensuring equality. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
it.  This  obligation  is  in  compliance  with  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  which,  in  Article  7, 
para.  1,  obliges  states  to  ensure  the  availability  of  judicial  and/or  administrative 
procedures,  including,  where  appropriate,  conciliation  procedures.  However,  if  the 
dispute  is  not  subject  to  mediation,  the  Commissioner  must  give  an  opinion  as  to 
whether there has been a violation of the prohibition of discrimination within 90 days of 
receiving  a  complaint  and  inform  the  individual  who  submitted  the  complaint  and  the 
individual  against  whom  the  complaint  was  submitted.  If  the  Commissioner  finds  a 
violation, they issue a recommendation to the individual against whom the complaint was 
submitted,  suggesting  a  way  of  redressing  the  violation  in  question.  The  individual  to 
whom  the  recommendation  is  addressed  is  obliged  to  act  upon  it  and  to  redress  the 
violation  in  question  within  30  days  of  receipt  of  the  recommendation.  The  individual 
must  inform  the  Commissioner  of  measures  taken.  However,  if  the  individual  fails  to 
redress the violation in question within 30 days, the Commissioner may inform the public 
in  electronic  and  print  media,  but  cannot  punish  the  violator.  Nevertheless,  the 
Commissioner  can  initiate  a  notice  for  misdemeanour  proceedings,  a  criminal  charge  or 
initiate a lawsuit if it finds that there is a strategic case for litigation. 

In  2016  the  Commissioner’s  office  provided  many  awareness-raising  activities  on 
discrimination  and  mechanisms  for  protection  against  discrimination,  and  initiated 
regional cooperation. The annual report was submitted on time (on 15 March 2017) and 
shows  that  in  2016,  the  Commissioner  received  626  complaints,  and  issued  opinions  in 
51 cases, provided 40 opinions on draft laws and general acts and initiated three criminal 
charges, as well as one misdemeanour charge, nine warnings and 25 announcements.28 

On  30  October  2015,  the  Commissioner  finally  received  a  decision  on  moving  to  other 
premises29  which  would  meet  the  spatial  and  technical  requirements.  Since  October 
2016,  the  Commissioner  has  been  using  the  new  premises,  which  also  provides  the 
possibility to employ an additional 19 members of staff for various posts and to have 50 
employees in the office. A regional office in Novi Pazar was opened in March 2014, but it 
didn’t  meet  expectations  as  only  a  small  number  of  citizens  communicated  with  the 
Commissioner  and  the  number  of  complaints  submitted  in  this  part  of  Serbia  is  still 
insignificant.30 

7. Key issues 

1. 

Compliance with the two EU anti-discrimination directives 

In Serbia national legislation is mainly in accordance with the two EU anti-discrimination 
directives  from  2000.  However,  there  are  some  inconsistencies  and  ambiguities  that 
require further judicial interpretation or changes to the existing legislation: 

- 

- 

- 

discrimination by association is recognised in the LPD, but its application is limited 
only to ‘members of families’ and people close to those being discriminated against;  
the  definition  of  direct  discrimination  is  in  line  with  the  definition  in  the  EU 
directives;  however,  it  is  limited  to  less  favourable  treatment  and  does  not  cover 
detriment;  
the  definition  of  indirect  discrimination  doesn’t  contain  the  conditional  wording 
(‘would’)  and  can  thus  be  interpreted  as  being  limited  to  the  actual  occurrence  of 
disadvantage, making it impossible to challenge neutral provisions before they incur 
disadvantages for actual victims;  

28   Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2016), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for 

Protection of Equality for 2015, Belgrade, p. 8. 

29   Commissioner for Protection of Equality (2016), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for Protection of 

Equality for 2015, Belgrade, p. 28. 

30   Commissioner for Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for Protection of 

Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 16. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 
- 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 
- 

the  instruction  to  discriminate is  not  defined  in  the  LPD  and  should  be  included in 
the law; 
the LPD does not expressly state that situation testing can be used as evidence in 
court  and  many  questions  derive  from  unclear  regulation  (for  example,  who  the 
tester  is,  whether  they  have  a  particular  relationship  with  the  individual  who 
reported  the  discrimination,  whether  they  have  been  discriminated  against 
previously, etc.); 
the  LPD  does  not  contain  any  specific  rule  in  relation  to  statistics;  the  case-law  is 
still developing and it is not clear how the courts will treat statistical evidence; 
the  LPD  does  not  cover  occupational  pensions,  social  advantages  and  self-
employment  and  it  is  unclear  whether  it  covers  social  protection  and  housing; 
although certain other laws regulate some of these issues, such as self-employment 
or housing, these provisions should be included in the LPD; 
the LPD mentions only access to services and not expressly access to goods; 
the LPD should recognise segregation as an aggravated form of discrimination; 
the  LPD  must  include  provisions  on  reasonable  accommodation  for  people  with 
disabilities; 
national law  does  not  provide  for  an  exception  for  employers  with  an  ethos  based 
on religion or belief, but there is a blanket exemption for religious officials who can 
discriminate, if this is what their religious doctrines require or allow;  
the  LPD  does  not  explicitly  provide  an  exception  for  direct  discrimination  on  the 
ground  of  age  and  further  judicial  interpretation  is  required,  especially  on  the 
application of the proportionality test;  
although  there  is  a  range  of  different  sanctions  which  can  be  imposed  in 
discrimination cases, some problems  which exist in practice, such as  delays in the 
proceedings  and  mild  sanctions,  influence  the  effectiveness  and  proportionality  of 
sanctions; 
the  LPDPD  does  not  provide  protection  from  victimisation,  and  the  definition  of 
victimisation  in  the  LPD  must  be  further  aligned  with  EU  law,  as  it  does  not 
expressly protect people from dismissal; 
the LPDPD does not contain a provision on the reversal of the burden of proof; 
class action is not permitted by national law in discrimination cases. 

2. 

Implementation of the existing normative framework 

Although the normative anti-discrimination framework in Serbia mainly respects relevant 
EU standards, some problems with the implementation of the existing norms are  visible 
in practice:  

- 

- 

- 

- 

the  implementation  of  the  Strategy  for  the  Prevention  of  and  Protection  from 
Discrimination requires a more proactive and systematic approach; some problems 
deserve urgent attention, such as the social inclusion of people with disabilities and 
Roma  which  needs  significant  improvement  and  the  position  of  LGBTI  people  and 
people with HIV/AIDS which must be improved; 
the Republic of Serbia has not yet established a unified and centralised system for 
collecting data relevant to the functioning of the system of legal protection against 
discrimination and this fact represents a huge problem in assessing and monitoring 
discrimination; 
although  the  number  of  cases  processed  rises  each  year,  it  is  still  insignificant  in 
comparison to the widespread nature  of discrimination in practice in all spheres  of 
society;  the  reasons  for  this  lie  in  insufficient  awareness  and  knowledge  about 
discrimination and the lack of determination of victims to seek help; 
although training on anti-discrimination law has been provided to police and judges 
of different jurisdictions, the State must continue with this training, in cooperation 
with international organisations and experts. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RÉSUMÉ  

1. Introduction 

La  République  de  Serbie  est  une  démocratie  parlementaire  constitutionnelle  et 
pluripartite. Son Assemblée nationale a été instituée en 1991. La dixième législature, qui 
a  entamé  ses  travaux  le  16 avril  2014,  a  pour  caractéristique  que  le  parti  chef  de  file 
détient  une  majorité  au  Parlement,  ce  qui  façonne  et  influence  le  travail  parlementaire 
actuel en Serbie. 

Selon  le  dernier  recensement,  effectué  en  2002,  la  République  de  Serbie  a  une 
population  de  7 498 001  habitants.  Les  Serbes  en  représentent  82,86 %,  les  Hongrois 
3,91 %,  les  Bosniaques 1,81 %,  les  Roms  1,44 %,  les  Yougoslaves  1,08 %,  les  Croates 
0,94 %, les Monténégrins 0,92 %, les Albanais 0,82 %, les Slovaques 0,79 %, les Vlachs 
0,53 %,  les  Roumains  0,46 %,  les  Macédoniens  0,34 %,  les  Bulgares  0,27 %,  les 
Bunjevci  0,27 %,  les  Musulmans  0,26 %,31  les  Ruthènes  0,21 %,  les  Slovènes  0,07 %, 
les Ukrainiens 0,07 %, les Goranis 0,06 %, les Allemands 0,05 %, les Russes 0,03 % et 
les  Tchèques  0,03 %.  La  majorité  de  la  population  serbe  est  de  confession  chrétienne 
orthodoxe (84,98 %), suivie des catholiques romains (5,48 %), des musulmans (3,2 %) 
et des protestants (1,08 %). D’autres religions sont également pratiquées en Serbie. 

2. Législation principale 

La  Constitution  de  Serbie,32  adoptée  en  2006,  contient  un  vaste  catalogue  de  droits  de 
l’homme; elle proclame l’égalité et interdit la discrimination (article 21, paragraphe 3).  

La  Serbie  a  introduit  un  ensemble  de  dispositions  législatives  antidiscrimination 
quasiment harmonisées avec les deux directives européennes33 de 2000. La Commission 
européenne  constate  dans  son  rapport  de  suivi  sur  la  Serbie  de  2016  que  la  législation 
antidiscrimination du pays est globalement conforme aux normes européennes, mais que 
des  amendements  doivent  encore  être  adoptés  pour  la  rendre  totalement  conforme  à 
l’acquis.34 Dans son rapport de l’année précédente, la Commission avait indiqué que ces 
modifications  étaient  attendues,  notamment  en  lien  avec  la  portée  des  dérogations  au 
principe  de  l’égalité  de  traitement,  la  définition  de  la  discrimination  indirecte  et 
l’obligation de prévoir un aménagement raisonnable pour les travailleurs handicapés.35 

La  première  loi  antidiscrimination  a  été  adoptée  en  avril  2006:  il  s’agit  de  la  loi  sur  la 
prévention  de  la  discrimination  à  l’égard  des  personnes  handicapées,36  ultérieurement 
complétée  de  la  loi  sur  la  réadaptation  professionnelle  et  l’emploi  des  personnes 
handicapées.37  La  loi  sur  la  prévention  de  la  discrimination  à  l’égard  des  personnes 

31   Une personne peut, en Serbie, se déclarer «Musulman» en tant qu’identité ethnique, même si le terme 

s’applique également dans un contexte d’identité religieuse. 

32   Serbie, Constitution de Serbie (Ustav Republike Srbije), Journal officiel de la République de Serbie, 

n° 98/2006, 10 novembre 2006. 

33   Directive 2000/43/CE du Conseil du 29 juin 2000 relative à la mise en œuvre du principe de l’égalité de 
traitement entre les personnes sans distinction de race ou d’origine ethnique, Journal officiel L 180, 
19 juillet 2000; Directive 2000/78/CE du Conseil du 27 novembre 2000 portant création d’un cadre général 
en faveur de l’égalité de traitement en matière d’emploi et de travail, Journal officiel L 303, 2 décembre 
2000. 

34   Document des services de la Commission, Serbia 2016 Report, SWD(2016) 361 final, Bruxelles, 9 novembre 

2016, p. 62. 

35   Commission européenne, Serbia 2015 report, Bruxelles, 10 novembre 2015, p. 56; texte disponible (en 

anglais) sur http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2015/20151110_report_serbia.pdf, 
consulté en dernier lieu le 27 mars 2016. 

36   Serbie, loi sur la prévention de la discrimination à l’égard des personnes handicapées (Zakon o sprečavanju 
diskriminacije osoba sa invaliditetom), Journal officiel de la République de Serbie, n° 33/2006, 17 avril 
2006. 

37   Serbie, loi sur la réadaptation professionnelle et l’emploi des personnes handicapées (Zakon o 

profesionalnoj rehabilitaciji i zapošljavanju osoba sa invaliditetom), Journal officiel de la République de 
Serbie, n° 36/2009, 32/2013, 17 avril 2006. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
handicapées  a  été  modifiée  en  201638  et  dispose  désormais  en  son  article 34, 
paragraphe 3,  que  les  autorités  publiques  sont  tenues  d’autoriser  l’utilisation  par  les 
personnes  handicapées,  et  notamment  par  les  personnes  aveugles  ou  malvoyantes, 
d’une  signature  personnelle  en  facsimilé  estampillée  pour  signer  des  documents 
juridiques.  L’article 34a  étend  cette  obligation  à  d’autres  entités  légales  et  individus. 
Plusieurs lois ont également été adoptées pour étayer davantage encore les dispositions 
de la loi sur la prévention de la discrimination à l’égard des personnes handicapées: on 
peut  citer  notamment  la  loi  sur  l’usage  de  chiens  guides39  et  la  loi  sur  l’usage  de  la 
langue des signes.40 

La Serbie a adopté sa première loi antidiscrimination exhaustive en mars 2009. La loi sur 
l’interdiction de la discrimination41 a marqué un  tournant en garantissant le respect des 
droits  de  l’homme  en  Serbie  au  travers  d’une  loi  antidiscrimination  systématique.  Elle 
interdit  un  large  éventail  d’actes  discriminatoires  et  couvre  en  outre,  en  les  élargissant 
considérablement,  tous  les  motifs  de  discrimination  visés  par  la  législation  de  l’UE  en 
matière  d’égalité.42  Cette  loi  s’applique  également  à  la  discrimination  à  l’encontre  des 
migrants.  La loi relative à l’asile s’applique aux demandeurs d’asile, aux réfugiés et aux 
personnes bénéficiant d’une protection temporaire.43 Elle garantit entre autres le droit à 
l’éducation, au logement, à la sécurité sociale, aux soins de santé et à l’aide juridique. En 
décembre 2016, soit huit ans après l’adoption de la loi sur l’asile, le gouvernement a voté 
un décret sur la manière de faire participer les personnes reconnues en tant que réfugiés 
à la vie sociale, culturelle et économique.44 Le décret prévoit une assistance dans divers 
domaines  déterminants  pour  l’intégration  des  réfugiés,  et  requiert  l’adoption  d’un  plan 
d’intégration pour chaque réfugié. 

De  surcroît,  la  loi  sur  la  protection  des  droits  et  des  libertés  des  minorités  nationales 45 
régit l’exercice de leurs droits par les personnes appartenant à ces minorités. Elle permet 
à  celles-ci  d’exercer  leurs  droits  constitutionnels  dans  un  environnement  politique 
démocratique, à titre individuel ou conjointement avec d’autres membres de leur groupe 
ethnique.  La  loi  définit  les  minorités  nationales  comme  des  citoyens  qui  sont 
suffisamment  représentatifs  en  termes  numériques,  qui  appartiennent  à  un  groupe  de 
résidents  ayant  un  lien  solide  et  de  longue  durée  avec  le  territoire  d’un  État,  qui 
«possèdent des caractéristiques telles que la langue, la culture, l’appartenance nationale 
ou ethnique, l’origine ou la confession les différenciant de la majorité de la population, et 
dont  les  membres  se  distinguent  par  une  volonté  de  cultiver  leur  identité  commune,  y 
compris leur culture, leurs traditions, leur langue ou leur religion». Cette définition exclut 

38   Serbie, amendements à la loi sur la prévention de la discrimination à l’égard des personnes handicapées 
(Izmene i dopune Zakona o sprečavanju diskriminacije osoba sa invaliditetom), Journal officiel de la 
République de Serbive, n° 13/16, 19 février 2016. 

39   Serbie, loi sur l’usage de chiens guides (Zakon o kretanju uz pomoć psa vodiča), Journal officiel de la 

République de Serbie, n° 29/2015, 31 mars 2015. 

40   Serbie, loi sur la langue des signes (Zakon o upotrebi znakovnog jezika), Journal officiel de la République de 

Serbie, n° 38/2015, 7 mai 2015. 

41   Serbie, loi sur l’interdiction de la discrimination (Zakon o zabrani diskriminacije), Journal officiel de la 

République de Serbie, n° 22/2009, 26 mars 2009. 

42   La loi sur l’interdiction de discrimination comporte une clause ouverte et mentionne explicitement les motifs 
suivants: la race, la couleur de peau, l’ascendance, la citoyenneté, l’appartenance nationale ou l’origine 
ethnique, la langue, les convictions religieuses ou politiques, le genre, l’identité de genre, l’orientation 
sexuelle, la situation financière, la naissance, les caractéristiques génétiques, l’état de santé, le handicap, 
l’état matrimonial ou familial, les convictions antérieures, l’âge, l’apparence, l’affiliation à une organisation 
politique, syndicale ou autre. 

43   Serbie, loi sur l’asile (Zakon o azilu), Journal officiel de la République de Serbie, n° 109/2007, 28 novembre 

2007. 

44   Décret sur la manière de faire participer les personnes reconnues en tant que réfugiés à la vie sociale, 

culturelle et économique, Journal officiel de la République de Serbie, n° 101/2016, 16 décembre 2016. Il fait 
uniquement référence aux réfugiés reconnus et ne couvre pas expressément les bénéficiaires d’une 
protection subsidiaire. 

45   Serbie, loi sur la protection des droits et des libertés des minorités nationales (Zakon o zaštiti prava i 

sloboda nacionalnih manjina), Journal officiel de la République fédérale de Yougoslavie n° 11/2002, Journal 
officiel de Serbie-Montenegro n° 1/2003, Journal officiel de la République de Serbie, n° 172/2009, 27 février 
2003. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                 
les migrants de son champ d’application. 

Plusieurs  autres  lois  contiennent  également  des  dispositions  antidiscrimination:  tel  est 
notamment  le  cas  de  la  loi  sur  le  travail,46  qui  interdit  la  discrimination  en  matière 
d’emploi;  de  la  loi  sur  les  principes  de  base  du  système  d’enseignement,47  qui  instaure 
l’éducation  inclusive;  de  la  loi  sur  la  jeunesse;48  de  la  loi  sur  l’enseignement 
préscolaire;49 et de la loi sur les églises et les communautés religieuses.50  

De surcroît, la protection contre la discrimination au titre du droit pénal est régie par le 
code  pénal,51  qui  énonce  plusieurs  infractions  pénales  en  rapport  avec  l’interdiction  de 
discrimination:  le  non-respect  de  l’égalité  (article  128),  le  non-respect  du  droit  d’usage 
d’une  langue  ou  d’un  alphabet  (article  129)  et  l’interdiction  de  discrimination  raciale  et 
autre (article 387). La loi sur les délits52 régit pour sa part les procédures, les conditions 
et  l’exécution  des  poursuites  relatives  aux  infractions  mineures.  Des  amendements 
apportés  au  code  pénal  ont  étendu  les  motifs  interdits  de  discrimination  au  handicap,  à 
l’orientation sexuelle et à l’identité de genre à l’article 128, qui définit le non-respect de 
l’égalité.53 

La Stratégie pour la prévention et la protection contre la discrimination a été adoptée en 
2013 et complétée d’un Plan d’action en octobre 2014; la mise en œuvre de ce dernier a 
été  entamée  avec  succès  en  2015.  La  Stratégie  pour  l'inclusion  sociale  des  Roms  en 
République  de  Serbie  (2016-2025)  a  été  adoptée  en  2016.54  Ce  document  vise  à 
intensifier pendant neuf ans l’action des institutions au niveau national et local pour gérer 
les problématiques de l’inclusion sociale des Roms et de la lutte contre la discrimination à 
leur  égard,  et  pour  créer  les  conditions  d’un  accès  intégral  aux  droits  de  l’homme  pour 
les  personnes  de  nationalité  rom.  Le  document  couvre  cinq  domaines  prioritaires,  à 
savoir l’éducation, le logement, l’emploi, les soins de santé et la protection sociale. 

3. Principes généraux et définitions 

La  loi  sur  l’interdiction  de  la  discrimination  reconnaît  sept  formes  de  discrimination:  la 
discrimination  directe  et  indirecte,  la  violation  du  principe  de  l’égalité  des  droits  et  des 
obligations,  l’empêchement  de  «demander  des  comptes»,55  l’association  à  des  fins  de 
discrimination,  le  discours  haineux,  le  harcèlement  et  le  traitement  humiliant,  et  les 
formes graves de discrimination. 

46   Serbie, loi sur le travail (Zakon o radu), Journal officiel de la République de Serbie, n° 24/2005, 61/2005, 

54/2009, 32/2013, 75/2014, 15 mars 2005. 

47   Serbie, loi sur les principes fondamentaux du système d’enseignement (Zakon o osnovama sistema 
obrazovanja i vaspitanja), Journal officiel de la République de Serbie, n° 72/09, 52/2011, 55/2013, 
interprétation authentique 35/2015, 68/2015, 62/2016 – décision CC, 31 août 2009. 

48   Serbie, loi sur la jeunesse (Zakon o mladima), Journal officiel de la République de Serbie, n° 50/011, 

8 juillet 2011. 

49   Serbie, loi sur l’enseignement préscolaire (Zakon o predškolskom vaspitanju i obrazovanju), Journal officiel 

de la République de Serbie, n° 18/010, 3 mai 2010. 

50   Serbie, loi sur les églises et les communautés religieuses (Zakon o crkvama i verskim zajednicama), Journal 

officiel de la République de Serbie, n° 36/2006, 27 avril 2006. 

51   Serbie, Code pénal (Krivični zakonik), Journal officiel de la République de Serbie, n° 85/2005, 88/2005 - 

corr., 107/2005 - corr., 72/2009, 111/2009, 121/2012, 104/2013, 108/2014, 6 octobre 2005. 

52   Serbie, loi sur les délits (Zakon o prekršajima), Journal officiel de la République de Serbie, n° 65/2013, 

13/2016, 25 juillet 2013.  

53   Serbie, article 9 de la loi sur les amendements au code pénal (Zakon o izmenama i dopunama Krivicnog 
zakonika), Journal officiel de la République de Serbie, n° 94/2016, 24 novembre 2016. Autres motifs 
interdits: l’origine nationale ou ethnique, race ou religion, opinion politique ou autre, sexe, langue, 
éducation, statut social, origine sociale, fortune et autres caractéristiques personnelles. 

54   Serbie, Stratégie pour l’inclusion sociale des Roms pour la période 2016-2025 (Strategija za socijalno 

uključivanje Roma i Romkinja u Republici Srbiji za period od 2016. do 2025. godine), Journal officiel de la 
République de Serbie, n° 26/16, 10 mars 2016. 

55   La rétorsion est désignée en droit serbe par l’expression «demande de comptes».   

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
La définition de la discrimination directe  est quasiment conforme  à celle qui figure dans 
les  directives  de  l’UE,  mais  elle  se  limite  à  un  traitement  moins  favorable  et  ne  couvre 
pas  le  préjudice.  La  définition  de  la  discrimination  indirecte  n’utilise  pas  la  formule 
conditionnelle «serait» et peut donc être interprétée comme se limitant à la survenance 
réelle  d’un  désavantage  –  ce  qui  ne  permet  pas  de  contester  des  dispositions  neutres 
devant  un  tribunal  avant  qu’elles  aient  défavorisé  des  victimes  réelles.  La  définition 
n’utilise pas non plus le libellé «une disposition, un critère ou une pratique apparemment 
neutre»  qui  explique  de  manière  plausible  ce  phénomène.  On  ne  voit  pas  clairement 
pourquoi  la  violation  du  principe  de  l’égalité  des  droits  est  reconnue  en  tant  que  forme 
spéciale de  discrimination, étant donné qu’il s’agit soit d’une discrimination directe, soit 
d’une discrimination indirecte, et qu’elle sert de critère de discrimination. L’interdiction de 
«demander des comptes» est la façon de désigner les  rétorsions, mais  cette disposition 
doit être harmonisée avec le droit de l’UE afin d’inclure expressément la protection contre 
le licenciement. Le discours haineux est libellé de façon ambiguë en raison de l’usage de 
l’expression «et d’autres manières» et il n’est pas reconnu comme une forme spéciale de 
discrimination  dans  les  directives  sur  l’égalité  raciale  et  dans  l’emploi.  La  loi  sur 
l’interdiction  de  la  discrimination  interdit  l’association  aux  fins  de  la  pratique  d’une 
discrimination  visant,  entre  autres,  à  inciter  à  la  haine  nationale,  raciale,  religieuse  ou 
autre, à la division ou à l’hostilité. La loi sur l’interdiction de la discrimination mentionne 
l’injonction de discriminer sans la définir. Le harcèlement y est défini comme une forme 
particulière de discrimination, et il est envisagé conjointement au traitement humiliant – 
l’article  en  question  étant  cependant  confus  dans  la  mesure  où  le  traitement  humiliant 
est une composante possible du harcèlement, mais où le terme «harcèlement» lui-même 
n’est pas défini.   

La loi sur l’interdiction de la discrimination autorise certaines exceptions et dérogations à 
la clause d’égalité. C’est ainsi que des mesures introduites dans le but d’assurer la pleine 
égalité,  la  protection  et  les  avancées  d’une  personne  ou  d’un  groupe  de  personnes  se 
trouvant  en  situation  d’inégalité  ne  sont  pas  considérées  comme  constitutives  d’une 
discrimination  (article 14).  Une  discrimination  indirecte  peut  se  justifier  s’il  existe  un 
objectif légitime et que les moyens de réaliser cet objectif sont appropriés et nécessaires.  
Un  traitement  différencié,  une  exclusion  ou  l’octroi  d’une  priorité  en  raison  de  la 
spécificité  d’un  emploi  sont  autorisés  lorsque  les  caractéristiques  personnelles  de 
l’intéressé  constituent  une  condition  préalable  essentielle  et  déterminante,  et  que 
l’objectif  recherché  est  justifié.  Par  ailleurs,  l’attitude  des  responsables  religieux, 
lorsqu’elle s’inscrit dans une doctrine ou des convictions religieuses, ou dans les objectifs 
d’églises et de communautés religieuses dûment accréditées en vertu de la loi régissant 
la  liberté  de  religion  et  le  statut  des  églises  et  des  communautés  religieuses,  n’est  pas 
assimilée  à  une  discrimination.  Cet  article  pose  problème  dans  la  mesure  où  il  confère 
une  dispense  générale  aux  responsables  religieux,  lesquels  peuvent  pratiquer  une 
discrimination  à  partir  du  moment  où  celle-ci  est  exigée  ou  admise  par  leur  doctrine 
religieuse.  

L’une  des  dispositions  de  la  directive  sur  l’égalité  dans  l’emploi  ayant  la  portée  la  plus 
grande  est  son  article  5,  qui  consacre  l’obligation  de  prévoir  un  aménagement 
raisonnable pour les personnes handicapées. Cette exigence ne figure pas dans la loi sur 
l’interdiction  de  la  discrimination  et  ne  vise  aucun  autre  motif  que  le  handicap.  Par 
ailleurs, la loi sur la prévention de la discrimination à l’égard des personnes handicapées 
prévoit  plusieurs  justifications  de  discrimination,  même  si  beaucoup  d’entre  elles  sont 
reconnues  en  tant  que  mesures  positives,  définies  à  l’article  8.  La  justification  la  plus 
problématique  figure  néanmoins  à  l’article  19,  paragraphe 2,  de  la  loi  sur  la  prévention 
de  la  discrimination  à  l’égard  des  personnes  handicapées  –  cet  article  autorisant 
l’organisation  de  classes  d’enseignement  pour  les  enfants  qui  ne  possèdent  pas  les 
capacités intellectuelles suffisantes pour suivre un enseignement ordinaire. 

15 

 
 
 
 
La  discrimination  multiple  est  reconnue  en  Serbie  comme  une  forme  grave  de 
discrimination,  ce  qui  signifie  qu’elle  peut  donner  lieu,  tout  comme  la  discrimination 
intersectionnelle, à des pénalités plus lourdes.56  

4. Champ d’application matériel 

La  loi  sur  l’interdiction  de  la  discrimination  s’applique  à  tous  les  domaines  de  la  vie 
publique  et  de  la  vie  privée,  étant  donné  que  son  article 2,  paragraphe 1,  définit  la 
discrimination comme «toute discrimination ou inégalité de traitement injustifiée» fondée 
sur  des  caractéristiques  personnelles.  La  dite  loi  précise  néanmoins  quelques  cas 
particuliers  de  discrimination,  tels  que  la  discrimination  dans  le  cadre  de  procédures  se 
déroulant  devant  des  instances  de  l’administration  publique;  la  discrimination  dans  la 
prestation  de  services  publics  et  dans  l’utilisation  des  locaux  et  des  espaces;  et  la 
discrimination dans l’emploi et dans l’éducation. Le champ d’application matériel de la loi 
sur  l’interdiction  de  la  discrimination  dépasse  donc  les  domaines  couverts  par  les  deux 
directives européennes.  

L’interdiction  de  discrimination  dans  l’emploi  s’applique  à  la  fois  au  secteur  public  et  au 
secteur privé. 

La  loi  sur  l’interdiction  de  la  discrimination  ne  couvre  pas  les  pensions  de  retraite 
professionnelles,  les  avantages  sociaux  et  l’emploi  indépendant,  et  il  n’est  pas  certain 
qu’elle  couvre  la  protection  sociale  et  le  logement.  Même  si  d’autres  lois  réglementent 
certains  de  ces  aspects,  des  dispositions  pertinentes  devraient  figurer  dans  la  loi 
interdisant la discrimination.    

La loi sur l’interdiction de la discrimination mentionne uniquement l’accès aux services et 
ne mentionne pas expressément l’accès aux biens.  

5. Mise en application de la loi 

Les procédures civiles en cas de discrimination sont régies par trois lois antidiscrimination 
(la loi sur l’interdiction de la discrimination, la loi sur la prévention de la discrimination à 
l’égard des personnes handicapées et la loi sur l’égalité de genre). La règle générale veut 
que les dispositions en matière de contentieux général s’appliquent, sauf réglementation 
différente  explicite  (lex  specialis).  Il  s’est  néanmoins  avéré  nécessaire  d’instituer  une 
procédure spéciale pour les cas de discrimination qui, destinée à assurer une protection 
civile efficace et efficiente contre la discrimination, respecte les normes internationales et 
européennes dans ce domaine.  

La loi sur la prévention de la discrimination à l’égard des personnes handicapées contient 
des  dispositions  procédurales  spécifiques  pour  renforcer  les  procédures  judiciaires  lors 
d’affaires  portant  sur  une  discrimination  à  l’encontre  de  personnes  handicapées.  La  loi 
sur  l’interdiction  de  discrimination  fixe  la  procédure  à  suivre  pour  initier  une  affaire  au 
civil  en  cas  de  discrimination  –  cette  démarche  pouvant  être  accomplie  par  toute 
personne  victime  d’un  traitement  discriminatoire.  L’une  des  dispositions  porte  sur  la 
compétence de la juridiction saisie en ce qui concerne les victimes de  discrimination. La 
loi  sur  l’interdiction  de  la  discrimination  admet  les  mesures  temporaires  et  il  appartient 
au  tribunal  de  statuer  dans  un  délai  de  trois  jours  sur  les  demandes  en  ce  sens.  La  loi 
prévoit  que  les  procédures  doivent  être  menées  d’urgence  (article 41,  paragraphe 3). 
L’article 45  de  cette  même  loi  fait  passer  en  outre  la  charge  de  la  preuve  de  la  partie 
plaignante à la partie défenderesse. 

L’article 41 de la loi sur l’interdiction de la discrimination dispose que toute personne se 
déclarant  victime  d’un  traitement  discriminatoire  est  en  droit  d’intenter  une  action  en 

56   Article 13 de la loi sur l’interdiction de la discrimination. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
justice. La partie requérante peut demander: 1) que soit interdite une action constituant 
une  menace  de  discrimination,  la  poursuite  d’une  action  discriminatoire  ou  la  répétition 
d’une  action  discriminatoire;  2)  que  la  juridiction  saisie  établisse  que  la  partie 
défenderesse a traité la partie plaignante ou une autre partie de façon discriminatoire; 3) 
que  des  mesures  soient  prises  pour  remédier  aux  conséquences  du  traitement 
discriminatoire;  4)  une  indemnisation  pour  préjudice  matériel  et  moral;  et  5)  la 
publication  de  l’arrêt.  L’article 46  prévoit  en  outre  qu’une  action  en  justice  peut  être 
intentée  par  le  Commissaire  ainsi  que  par  une  organisation  de  défense  des  droits  de 
l’homme ou des droits d’un groupe particulier de personnes. 

Des  mesures  d’action  positive  sont  expressément  autorisées  par  la  Constitution  serbe 
(article 21, paragraphe 4) et la loi sur l’interdiction de la discrimination (article 14). Elles 
visent plus spécifiquement à une plus grande participation des femmes en politique, des 
Roms dans l’éducation et des personnes handicapées dans l’emploi. 

6. Organismes de promotion de l’égalité de traitement 

Le Commissaire à la protection de l’égalité a été institué par la loi sur l’interdiction de la 
discrimination en tant qu’organisme public indépendant, autonome et spécialisé doté d’un 
vaste  mandat  en  matière  de  promotion  de  l’égalité  et  de  lutte  contre  la  discrimination 
dans  toutes  les  sphères  de  la  société.  Il  assume  deux  responsabilités  principales:  la 
prévention  de  la  discrimination  et  la  protection  contre  la  discrimination.  Le  Bureau  du 
Commissaire a toute une série de mesures à sa disposition, dont les plus pertinentes du 
point de vue des victimes de discrimination consistent à recevoir et instruire des plaintes 
et  à  engager  des  litiges  stratégiques  ainsi  que  des  poursuites  pour  délits  mineurs  ou 
infractions pénales.57 

La  procédure  de  requête  auprès  du  Commissaire  est  régie  par  les  articles 35  à 40  et  la 
règle générale veut que les dispositions de la loi régissant les procédures administratives 
générales  s’appliquent  de  la  même  manière  aux  procédures  impliquant  le  Commissaire.  
Le  Commissaire  doit  transmettre  la  plainte  dans  un  délai  de  15 jours,  à  compter  de  la 
date  à  laquelle  il  l’a  lui-même  reçue,  à  l’auteur  présumé  des  faits,  lequel  dispose  de 
15 jours  pour  y  répondre.  Le  Commissaire  peut  proposer  une  médiation  si  les  deux 
parties y consentent. Cette obligation est conforme à la directive sur l’égalité raciale qui 
exige  en  son  article 7,  paragraphe 1,  que  les  États  membres  veillent  à  ce  que  des 
procédures  judiciaires  et/ou  administratives  soient  accessibles,  y  compris,  lorsqu’ils 
l’estiment approprié, des procédures de conciliation. Cependant, lorsque le conflit ne fait 
pas l’objet d’une médiation, le Commissaire  est tenu, dans un délai de 90 jours à dater 
de la réception de la plainte, de formuler un avis sur le point de savoir s’il y a eu ou non 
violation  de  l’interdiction  de  discrimination,  et  d’en  informer  le  plaignant  ainsi  que  la 
personne  à  l’encontre  de  laquelle  la  plainte  a  été  déposée.  Si  le  Commissaire  constate 
une  violation,  il  adresse  une  recommandation  à  la  personne  visée  par  la  plainte  en  lui 
suggérant  une  manière  de  réparer  la  violation  en  question.  Le  destinataire  de  cette 
recommandation  est  tenu  d’y  donner  suite  et  de  remédier  à  la  violation  constatée  dans 
un  délai  de  30 jours  à  compter  de  la  date  de  réception  de  la  dite  recommandation.  La 
personne  doit  informer  le  Commissaire  des  mesures  prises.  Si  toutefois  la  personne  ne 
remédie  pas  à  la  violation  constatée  dans  le  délai  imparti  de  30 jours,  le  Commissaire 
peut  en  informer  le  public  en  utilisant  des  médias  électroniques  et  écrits,  mais  ne  peut 
sanctionner  le  contrevenant.  Il  peut  cependant  introduire  une  notification  en  vue  de 
l’engagement  de  procédures  pour  délits  mineurs  ou  pour  infractions  pénales,  ou  de 

57   Le Commissaire peut également fournir des informations à la personne qui dépose plainte, et recommander 
la médiation; il soumet des rapports annuels et spéciaux à l’Assemblée nationale; il avertit le public des cas 
les plus fréquents, les plus typiques et les plus graves de discrimination; il contrôle la mise en œuvre des 
lois et autres réglementations; il initie le vote ou la modification de réglementations; il émet des avis 
concernant les dispositions de projets de lois et autres réglementations; il instaure et entretient la 
coopération avec différents organes et organismes; et il recommande aux organes de l’administration 
publique et autres institutions des mesures destinées à assurer l’égalité. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
l’initiation  d’une  action  en  justice  s’il  estime  qu’il  y  a  matière  à  engager  un  litige 
stratégique. 

Le bureau du Commissaire a déployé en 2016 de nombreuses actions de sensibilisation à 
l’égard de la discrimination et des mécanismes permettant de s’en protéger, et initié une 
coopération  régionale.  Le  rapport  annuel  a  été  présenté  à  temps  (le  15 mars  2017)  et 
montre qu’en 2016 le Commissaire a été saisi de 626 plaintes et qu’il a émis un avis dans 
51 cas; il a formulé 40 avis concernant des projets de loi et des actes généraux; il a initié 
trois  procédures  pour  infraction  pénale  ainsi qu’une  procédure  pour  délit  mineur;  et  il  a 
lancé neuf avertissements et publié 25 communiqués.58 

Le Commissaire a finalement reçu en date du 30 octobre 2015 une décision concernant le 
déménagement  de  son  bureau  dans  des  locaux59  répondant  mieux  à  ses  besoins  en 
termes  techniques  et  d’espace.  Le  Commissaire  occupe  les  nouveaux  locaux  depuis 
octobre 2016, ce qui donne également la possibilité d’engager 19 membres de personnel 
supplémentaires à divers postes et d’occuper 50 personnes dans le bureau.  Par ailleurs, 
un bureau régional a été inauguré à Novi Pazar en mars 2014, mais il ne répond pas aux 
attentes  dans  la  mesure  où  seul  un  petit  nombre  de  citoyens  ont  pris  contact  avec  le 
Commissaire et où le nombre de plaintes introduites dans cette partie de la Serbie reste 
négligeable.60 

7. Points essentiels 

1. 

Conformité aux deux directives antidiscrimination de l’UE 

législation  nationale  serbe  est  globalement  conforme  aux  deux  directives 
La 
antidiscrimination  adoptées  par  l’UE  en  2000.  Un  certain  nombre  d’incohérences  et 
d’ambigüités  nécessitent  néanmoins  une  interprétation  judiciaire  plus  poussée  ou  une 
modification de la législation existante:   

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

la  discrimination  par  association  est  reconnue  par  la  loi  sur  l’interdiction  de  la 
discrimination,  mais  son  application  se  limite  aux  «membres  de  la  famille»  et  aux 
personnes proches des victimes de la discrimination;    
la  définition  de  la  discrimination  directe  est  conforme  à  celle  figurant  dans  les 
directives européennes; elle se limite toutefois au traitement moins favorable et ne 
couvre pas le préjudice;  
la définition de la discrimination indirecte ne contient pas la formule conditionnelle 
«serait»  et  peut  donc  être  interprétée  comme  se  limitant  à  la  survenance  réelle 
d’un  désavantage  –  ce  qui  ne  permet  pas  de  contester  des  dispositions  neutres 
devant un tribunal avant qu’elles aient défavorisé des victimes réelles;  
l’injonction  de  discriminer  n’est  pas  définie  dans  la  loi  sur  l’interdiction  de  la 
discrimination, et devrait y être incluse; 
la loi sur l’interdiction de la discrimination ne stipule pas expressément que le test 
de  situation  peut  servir  de  preuve  en  justice  et  la  réglementation  peu  claire  en  la 
matière engendre de nombreuses questions (qui procède au test, cette personne a-
t-elle  un  lien  particulier  avec  celle  qui  signale  la  discrimination,  y  a-t-il  eu  des 
précédents, etc.); 
la loi  sur  l’interdiction  de  la  discrimination  ne  contient  aucune  règle  spécifique  par 
rapport  aux  statistiques;  la  jurisprudence  est  encore  embryonnaire  et  on  ne  voit 
pas  encore  clairement  quel  traitement  les  cours  et  tribunaux  vont  réserver  aux 
preuves statistiques; 

58   Commissaire à la protection de l’égalité (2016), Rapport annuel 2015 du Commissaire à la protection de 

l’égalité, Belgrade, p. 8. 

59   Commissaire à la protection de l’égalité (2016), Rapport annuel 2015 du Commissaire à la protection de 

l’égalité, Belgrade, p. 28. 

60   Commissaire à la protection de l’égalité (2017), Rapport annuel 2016 du Commissaire à la protection de 

l’égalité, Belgrade, p. 16. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

la  loi  sur  l’interdiction  de  discrimination  ne  couvre  pas  les  pensions  de  retraite 
professionnelles,  les  avantages  sociaux  et  le  travail  indépendant,  et  il  n’est  pas 
certain  qu’elle  couvre  la  sécurité  sociale  et  le  logement;  même  si  d’autres  lois 
réglementent certains de ces aspects, des dispositions pertinentes devraient figurer 
dans la loi sur l’interdiction de la discrimination; 
la  loi  sur  l’interdiction  de  la  discrimination  mentionne  uniquement  l’accès  aux 
services, et ne mentionne pas expressément l’accès aux biens; 
la loi sur l’interdiction de la discrimination devrait reconnaître la ségrégation en tant 
que forme aggravée de discrimination; 
la loi sur l’interdiction de la discrimination doit comporter des dispositions relatives 
aux aménagements raisonnables en faveur des personnes handicapées; 
le  droit  national  ne  prévoit  pas  d’exception  pour  les  employeurs  dont  l’éthique  se 
fonde  sur  la  religion  ou  les  convictions,  mais  il  existe  une  dispense  générale  pour 
les responsables religieux qui peuvent pratiquer une discrimination lorsque  celle-ci 
est exigée ou admise par leur doctrine religieuse;  
la loi sur l’interdiction de la discrimination ne prévoit pas expressément d’exception 
en ce qui concerne une discrimination directe fondée sur l’âge et une interprétation 
judiciaire plus poussée s’impose, en rapport plus particulièrement avec l’application 
du test de proportionnalité;  
en dépit de l’arsenal de sanctions prévues en cas de discrimination, des problèmes 
constatés  dans  la  pratique,  tels  que  des  retards  de  procédure  et  des  sanctions 
clémentes, se répercutent sur l’efficacité et la proportionnalité des sanctions; 
la loi sur la prévention de la discrimination à l’égard des personnes handicapées ne 
prévoit  pas  de  protection  contre  les  rétorsions,  et  la  définition  des  rétorsions 
figurant dans la loi sur l’interdiction de la discrimination doit être davantage alignée 
sur  le  droit  de  l’UE  car  elle  ne  prévoit  pas  expressément  de  protection  contre  le 
licenciement; 
la loi sur la prévention de la discrimination à l’égard des personnes handicapées ne 
contient pas de disposition concernant le renversement de la charge de la preuve; 
le droit national n’autorise pas l’action collective en cas de discrimination. 

2.  Mise en œuvre du cadre normatif existant 

Bien  que  le  cadre  normatif  antidiscrimination  de  la  Serbie  respecte  globalement  les 
normes  pertinentes  de  l’UE,  un  certain  nombre  de  problèmes  sont  observés  dans 
l’application pratique des normes en vigueur:  

- 

- 

- 

- 

la  mise  en  œuvre  de  la  Stratégie  pour  la  prévention  et  la  protection  contre  la 
discrimination  requiert  une  approche  davantage  proactive  et  systématique; 
plusieurs  problèmes  demandent  une  attention  urgente:  on  songe  notamment  ici  à 
l’amélioration  de  l’inclusion  sociale  des  personnes  handicapées  et  des  Roms  ainsi 
qu’à  l’amélioration  de  la  situation  des  personnes  LGBTI  et  des  personnes 
séropositives; 
la République de Serbie n’a pas encore mis en place de système unifié et centralisé 
pour  la  collecte  des  données  relatives  au  fonctionnement  du  régime  de  protection 
juridique  contre  la  discrimination,  ce  qui  pose  un  énorme  problème  au  niveau  de 
l’évaluation et du suivi; 
bien que le nombre d’affaires traitées augmente chaque année, il reste mineur par 
rapport à un phénomène discriminatoire largement répandu dans toutes les sphères 
de  la  société;  cette  situation  s’explique  par  un  manque  de  sensibilisation  et  de 
connaissance  concernant la  discrimination, et par le manque de détermination des 
victimes de demander de l’aide; 
même si une formation au droit antidiscrimination a été dispensée aux policiers et 
magistrats  de  différentes  juridictions,  il  convient  que  l’État  poursuive  cette 
formation en coopération avec des organisations et experts internationaux.   

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG  

1. Einleitung 
Die  Republik  Serbien 
einem 
Mehrparteiensystem  und  einer  geschriebenen  Verfassung.  Die  aus  vielen  Parteien 
bestehende Nationalversammlung der Republik Serbien wurde im Jahr 1991 eingerichtet. 
Die  10.  gesetzgebende  Versammlung  nahm  am  16.  April  2014  ihre  Arbeit  auf  und  ist 
davon  geprägt,  dass  die  führende  Partei  eine  Mehrheit  im  Parlament  besitzt.  Dies  prägt 
und beeinflusst derzeit die parlamentarische Arbeit in Serbien. 

parlamentarische  Demokratie  mit 

eine 

ist 

Nach der letzten Volkszählung von  2002 hat die Republik Serbien 7 498 001 Einwohner. 
Serben  stellen  82,86 %  der  Bevölkerung,  Ungarn  3,91 %,  Bosnier  1,81 %,  Roma 
1,44 %,  Jugoslawen  1,08 %,  Kroaten  0,94 %,  Montenegriner  0,92 %,  Albaner  0,82 %, 
Slowaken  0,79 %,  Walachen  0,53 %,  Rumänen  0,46 %,  Mazedonier  0,34 %,  Bulgaren 
und  Bunjewatzen  jeweils  0,27 %,  Muslime  0,26 %,61  Russinen  0,21 %,  Slowenen  und 
Ukrainer jeweils 0,07 %, Goranen 0,06 %, Deutsche 0,05 % und Russen und Tschechen 
jeweils  0,03 %.  Die  Mehrheit  der  serbischen  Bevölkerung  gehört  dem  christlich-
orthodoxen  Glauben  an  (84,98 %),  gefolgt  von  Katholiken  (5,48 %),  Muslimen  (3,2 %) 
und Protestanten (1,08 %). Auch andere Religionen sind in Serbien vertreten. 

2. Wichtigste Gesetze 

Die  Verfassung  Serbiens62  aus  dem  Jahr  2006  enthält  einen  umfassenden  Katalog  von 
Menschenrechten (Art. 21 Abs. 3). 

Serbien  hat  eine  Reihe  von  Antidiskriminierungsvorschriften  erlassen,  die  nahezu 
vollständig  an  die  beiden  EU-Richtlinien  von  2000  angeglichen  sind.63  In  ihrem 
Fortschrittsbericht zu Serbien für das Jahr 2016 bescheinigt die Europäische Kommission, 
dass  die  serbischen  Antidiskriminierungsvorschriften  weitgehend  den  EU-Standards 
entsprechen;  es  müssten  jedoch  noch  ein  paar  Änderungen  vorgenommen  werden,  um 
sie vollständig mit dem Besitzstand der EU in Einklang zu bringen.64 In ihrem Bericht für 
das  Jahr  2015  hatte  die  Kommission  festgestellt,  dass  insbesondere  hinsichtlich  des 
Umfangs  der  Ausnahmen  vom  Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatz,  der  Definition  von 
mittelbarer  Diskriminierung  und  der  Pflicht,  angemessene  Vorkehrungen  für  behinderte 
Arbeitnehmer/innen zu treffen, Änderungen erwartet würden.65 

Im April 2006 wurde das erste Antidiskriminierungsgesetz verabschiedet, das Gesetz zur 
Verhinderung der Diskriminierung von Menschen mit Behinderungen (GVDMB),66 ergänzt 
durch  das  Gesetz  zur  beruflichen  Rehabilitierung  und  Beschäftigung  von  Menschen  mit 
Behinderungen (GbRBMB).67 2016 wurde das GVDMB geändert68 und in Artikel 34 Absatz 

61   In Serbien kann als ethnische Identität „Muslim“ angegeben werden, derselbe Begriff kann aber auch in 

Bezug auf die religiöse Identität verwendet werden. 

62   Serbien, Verfassung der Republik Serbien (Ustav Republike Srbije), Amtsblatt der Republik Serbien, 

Nr. 98/2006, 10. November 2006. 

63   Richtlinie 2000/43/EG des Rates vom 29. Juni 2000 zur Anwendung des Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatzes 
ohne Unterschied der Rasse oder der ethnischen Herkunft, ABl. L 180/22, 19. Juli 2000; Richtlinie 
2000/78/EG des Rates vom 27. November 2000 zur Festlegung eines allgemeinen Rahmens für die 
Verwirklichung der Gleichbehandlung in Beschäftigung und Beruf, ABl. L 303, 2. Dezember 2000. 
64   Arbeitsunterlage der Kommissionsdienststellen, Serbia 2016 Report, SWD(2016) 361 final, Brüssel, 

9. November 2016, S. 62. 

65  Europäische Kommission, Serbia 2015 Report, Brüssel, 10. November 2015, S. 56; abrufbar 

unterhttp://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2015/20151110_report_serbia.pdf (letzter 
Zugriff am 27. März 2016). 

66   Serbien, Gesetz zur Verhinderung der Diskriminierung von Menschen mit Behinderungen (Zakon o 
sprečavanju diskriminacije osoba sa invaliditetom), Amtsblatt der Republik Serbien, Nr. 33/2006, 
17. April 2006. 

67   Serbien, Gesetz zur beruflichen Rehabilitierung und Beschäftigung von Menschen mit Behinderungen (Zakon 

o profesionalnoj rehabilitaciji i zapošljavanju osoba sa invaliditetom), Amtsblatt der Republik Serbien, 
Nr. 36/2009, 32/2013, 17. April 2006. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3 festgelegt, dass die Behörden verpflichtet sind, die Verwendung persönlicher Faksimile-
Unterschriftsstempel  durch  Personen  mit  Behinderungen –  vor  allem  solchen,  die  blind 
oder  sehbehindert  sind –  zur  Unterzeichnung  von  Rechtsdokumenten  zuzulassen.  Mit 
Artikel 34a wird diese Pflicht auf andere juristische und natürliche Personen ausgeweitet. 
Um das GVDMB weiter zu stärken, wurden auch einige Gesetze verabschiedet, etwa das 
Gesetz über den  Einsatz von Blindenführhunden69 und das Gesetz über  die Verwendung 
der Gebärdensprache.70 

deckt 

Überdies 

Handlungen. 

Im  März  2009  wurde  in  Serbien  das  erste  umfassende  Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 
verabschiedet.  Das  Gesetz  über  das  Verbot  von  Diskriminierung  (GVD)71,  mit  dem  ein 
systematisches  Antidiskriminierungsrecht  eingeführt  wurde,  ist  ein  wichtiger  Meilenstein 
für  den  Schutz  der  grundlegenden  Menschenrechte  in  Serbien.  Es  verbietet  zahlreiche 
diskriminierende 
im 
Gleichbehandlungsrecht  der  EU  vorgegebenen  Diskriminierungsgründe  ab  und  weitet 
diese erheblich aus.72 Die Rechtsvorschriften erstrecken sich auch auf die Diskriminierung 
von  Migrantinnen  und  Migranten.  Das  Asylgesetz  gilt  für  Asylsuchende,  Flüchtlinge  und 
Personen, denen vorübergehend Schutz gewährt wird.73 Es garantiert unter anderem das 
Recht  auf  Bildung,  Unterbringung,  soziale  Sicherheit,  Gesundheitsversorgung  und 
rechtliche  Unterstützung.  Im  Dezember  2016,  acht  Jahre  nach  Verabschiedung  des 
Asylgesetzes,  erließ  die  Regierung  ein  Dekret  über  die  Einbeziehung  von  als  Flüchtlinge 
anerkannten  Personen  in  das  soziale,  kulturelle  und  wirtschaftliche  Leben.74  Das  Dekret 
sieht  Unterstützung  in  verschiedenen  Bereichen  vor,  die  für  die  Integration  von 
Flüchtlingen von entscheidender Bedeutung sind, und legt fest, dass für jeden Flüchtling 
ein Integrationsplan erstellt werden soll. 

sämtliche 

GVD 

das 

Das  Gesetz  zum  Schutz  der  Rechte  und  Freiheiten  nationaler  Minderheiten75  regelt 
darüber hinaus die Durchsetzung der Rechte von Menschen, die nationalen Minderheiten 
angehören.  Es  ermöglicht  diesen  Angehörigen  nationaler  Minderheiten,  einzeln  oder 
gemeinsam  mit  anderen  Mitgliedern  ihrer  ethnischen  Gruppe,  ihre  verfassungsmäßigen 
Rechte  in  demokratischer  Weise  auszuüben.  Nationale  Minderheiten  werden  in  dem 
Gesetz  als  Staatsbürger/innen  definiert,  die  zahlenmäßig  hinreichend  repräsentativ  sind 
und einer Bevölkerungsgruppe mit einer langjährigen, festen Bindung zum Hoheitsgebiet 
eines  Staates  angehören,  und  die  „Eigenschaften  wie  Sprache,  Kultur,  nationale  oder 
ethnische  Zugehörigkeit,  Herkunft  oder  Konfession  besitzen,  die  sie  von  der 
Mehrheitsbevölkerung  unterscheiden,  und  deren  Mitglieder  sich  dafür  einsetzen,  ihre 
gemeinsame  Identität  (Kultur,  Tradition,  Sprache,  Religion  usw.)  kollektiv  zu  pflegen“. 
Diese Definition schließt Migrantinnen und Migranten von ihrer Anwendung aus. 

68   Serbien, Novellierung des Gesetzes zur Verhinderung der Diskriminierung von Menschen mit Behinderungen 
(Izmene i dopune Zakona o sprečavanju diskriminacije osoba sa invaliditetom), Amtsblatt der Republik 
Serbien, Nr. 13/16, 19. Februar 2016. 

69   Serbien, Gesetz über den Einsatz von Blindenführhunden (Zakon o kretanju uz pomoć psa vodiča), 

Amtsblatt der Republik Serbien, Nr. 29/2015, 31. März 2015. 

70   Serbien, Gesetz über die Verwendung der Gebärdensprache (Zakon o kretanju uz pomoć psa vodiča), 

Amtsblatt der Republik Serbien, Nr. 38/2015, 7. Mai 2015. 

71   Serbien, Gesetz über ein Verbot von Diskriminierung (Zakon o zabrani diskriminacije), Amtsblatt der 

Republik Serbien, Nr. 22/2009, 13/2009, 26. März 2009. 

72   Das GVD enthält eine offene Klausel und erwähnt explizit die folgenden Gründe: Rasse, Hautfarbe, 

Abstammung, Staatsbürgerschaft, nationale Zugehörigkeit oder ethnische Herkunft, Sprache, religiöse oder 
politische Überzeugungen, Geschlecht, Geschlechtsidentität, sexuelle Orientierung, Vermögenslage, Geburt, 
genetische Merkmale, Gesundheit, Behinderung, Ehe- und Familienstand, frühere Überzeugungen, Alter, 
Aussehen, Mitgliedschaft in politischen, gewerkschaftlichen und sonstigen Organisationen. 
73   Serbien, Asylgesetz (Zakon o kretanju uz pomoć psa vodiča), Amtsblatt der Republik Serbien, 

Nr. 109/2007, 28. November 2007. 

74   Dekret über die Einbeziehung von als Flüchtlinge anerkannten Personen in das soziale, kulturelle und 
wirtschaftliche Leben, Amtsblatt der Republik Serbien, Nr. 101/2016, 16. Dezember 2016. Das Dekret 
bezieht sich nur auf anerkannte Flüchtlinge und erfasst nicht ausdrücklich Personen, denen ein subsidiärer 
Schutz zuerkannt wurde. 

75   Serbien, Gesetz zum Schutz der Rechte und Freiheiten nationaler Minderheiten, Amtsblatt der 

Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien, Nr. 11/2002, Amtsblatt von Serbien und Montenegro, Nr. 1/2003, Amtsblatt 
der Republik Serbien, 172/2009, 27. Februar 2003. 

21 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Viele  andere  Gesetze  enthalten  ebenfalls  ein  Diskriminierungsverbot,  z. B.  das 
Arbeitsgesetz,76,  das  Diskriminierung  im  Arbeitsleben  verbietet,  das  Gesetz  über  die 
Grundlagen  des  Bildungssystems,77  das  eine 
inklusive  Bildung  einführt,  das 
Jugendgesetz,78 das Gesetz über die vorschulische Bildung79 und das Gesetz über Kirchen 
und religiöse Vereinigungen.80  

Ein strafrechtlicher Schutz vor Diskriminierung ist zudem im Strafgesetzbuch81 geregelt, 
der in Bezug auf das Diskriminierungsverbot mehrere Straftatbestände kennt: Artikel 128 
(Verletzung  des  Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatzes),  Artikel 129  (Verletzung  des  Rechts  zur 
Verwendung  einer  Sprache  und  eines  Alphabets)  und  Artikel 387  (Verbot  der 
Rassendiskriminierung 
über 
Ordnungswidrigkeiten82  regelt  die  Verfahren,  Bedingungen  und  die  Durchsetzung  von 
Ordnungsstrafen.  Änderungen  des  Strafgesetzbuchs  haben  die  unzulässigen 
Diskriminierungsgründe in Artikel 128, der die Verletzung des Gleichheitsgebots definiert, 
um Behinderung, sexuelle Orientierung und Geschlechtsidentität erweitert.83 

Diskriminierung). 

anderer 

Gesetz 

und 

Das 

Die  Strategie  zur  Verhütung  von  und  zum  Schutz  vor  Diskriminierung  wurde  2013 
beschlossen  und  im  Oktober  2014  um  den  Aktionsplan  ergänzt,  dessen  Umsetzung  im 
Jahr  2015  erfolgreich  eingeleitet  wurde.  2016  wurde  die  Strategie  zur  Sozialen 
Eingliederung  von  Roma  in  der  Republik  Serbien  für  den  Zeitraum  2016-2025 
verabschiedet.84  Ziel  dieses  strategischen  Dokuments  ist  es,  über  einen  Zeitraum  von 
neun  Jahren  die  Arbeit der  Institutionen  in  Bezug  auf  Fragen  der  sozialen  Eingliederung 
von  Roma,  den  Kampf  gegen  die  Diskriminierung  von  Roma  und  die  Schaffung  von 
Bedingungen  für  einen  umfassenden  Zugang  zu  Menschenrechten  für  Angehörige  der 
Roma-Nationalität  auf  nationaler  und  lokaler  Ebene  zu  intensivieren.  Das  Dokument 
Bildung,  Wohnraumversorgung, 
umfasst 
Beschäftigung, Gesundheitsversorgung und Sozialschutz. 

Schwerpunktbereiche, 

nämlich 

fünf 

3. Wichtigste Grundsätze und Begriffe 

Das  GVD  kennt  sieben  Formen  von  Diskriminierung:  unmittelbare  und  mittelbare 
Diskriminierung,  Verletzung  des  Grundsatzes  der  gleichen  Rechte  und  Pflichten, 
Verhinderung  des  zur  Verantwortung  Ziehens,85  Vereinigung  zum  Zweck  der 
Diskriminierung,  Hassrede,  Belästigung  und  Herabwürdigung  und  schwere  Formen  von 
Diskriminierung. 

Die Definition von unmittelbarer Diskriminierung entspricht fast vollständig der Definition 
in  den  EU-Richtlinien,  ist  jedoch  auf  eine  weniger  günstige  Behandlung  beschränkt  und 

76   Serbien, Arbeitsgesetz (Zakon o radu), Amtsblatt der Republik Serbien, Nr. 24/2005, 61/2005, 54/2009, 

32/2013, Nr. 75/2014, 15. März 2005. 

77   Serbien, Gesetz über die Grundlagen des Bildungssystems (Zakon o osnovama sistema 

obrazovanja i vaspitanja), Amtsblatt der Republik Serbien, Nr. 72/09, 52/2011, 55/2013, 35/2015 
authentische Auslegung, 68/2015, 62/2016 – Verfassungsgericht, Beschluss vom 31. August 2009. 
78   Serbien, Jugendgesetz (Zakon o mladima), Amtsblatt der Republik Serbien, Nr. 50/011, 8. Juli 2011. 
79   Serbien, Gesetz über die vorschulische Bildung (Zakon o predškolskom vaspitanju i obrazovanju), Amtsblatt 

der Republik Serbien, Nr. 18/010, 3. Mai 2010. 

80   Serbien, Gesetz über Kirchen und religiöse Vereinigungen (Zakon o crkvama i verskim zajednicama), 

Amtsblatt der Republik Serbien, Nr. 36/2006, 27. April 2006. 

81   Serbien, Strafgesetzbuch (Krivični zakonik), Amtsblatt der Republik Serbien, Nr. 85/2005, 88/2005 – Korr., 

107/2005 – Korr., 72/2009, 111/2009, 121/2012, 104/2013, 108/2014, 6. Oktober 2005. 

82   Serbien, Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten (Zakon o prekršajima), Amtsblatt der Republik Serbien, 

Nr. 65/2013, 13/2016, 25. Juli 2013.  

83   Serbien, Art. 9 Gesetz zur Änderung des Strafgesetzbuchs (Zakon o izmenama i dopunama Krivicnog 

zakonika), Amtsblatt der Republik Serbien, Nr. 94/2016, 24. November 2016. Andere unzulässige Gründe 
sind: nationale oder ethnische Zugehörigkeit, Rasse oder Religion, politische oder sonstige Meinung, 
Geschlecht, Sprache, Bildung, sozialer Status, soziale Herkunft, Besitz und andere persönliche Merkmale. 

84   Serbien, Strategie zur Sozialen Eingliederung von Roma in der Republik Serbien für den Zeitraum 2016-

2025 (Strategija za socijalno uključivanje Roma i Romkinja u Republici Srbiji za period od 2016. do 2025. 
godine), Amtsblatt der Republik Serbien, Nr. 26/16, 10. März 2016. 

85   Viktimisierung wird im serbischen Recht als „zur Verantwortung ziehen“ bezeichnet. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
enthält nicht den Begriff des Schadens. Die Definition von mittelbarer Diskriminierung ist 
nicht konditional formuliert („können“) und kann daher so ausgelegt werden, dass sie nur 
für  eine  tatsächlich  vorgekommene  Benachteiligung  gilt,  wodurch  es  unmöglich  wird, 
gegen  neutrale  Vorschriften  vorzugehen,  bevor  tatsächlich  ein  Opfer  benachteiligt  wird. 
Außerdem  verwendet  sie  nicht  den  Wortlaut  „dem  Anschein  nach  neutrale  Vorschriften, 
Kriterien oder Verfahren“, was eine plausible Erklärung für dieses Phänomen bietet. Es ist 
nicht klar, warum die Verletzung des Grundsatzes der gleichen Rechte als spezielle Form 
von  Diskriminierung  angeführt  wird,  weil  dies  entweder  eine  unmittelbare  oder  eine 
mittelbare  Diskriminierung  darstellt  und  sogar  als  Test  für  Diskriminierung  verwendet 
wird.  Das  Verbot,  jemanden  „zur  Verantwortung  zu  ziehen“,  ist –  in  anderen  Worten – 
das Verbot von „Viktimisierung“; diese Vorschrift muss jedoch insofern mit dem EU-Recht 
in  Einklang  gebracht  werden,  als  sie  einen  ausdrücklichen  Kündigungsschutz  beinhalten 
muss.  Die  Definition  von  Hassrede  ist  zweideutig,  weil  sie  die  Formulierung  „und  auf 
andere  Weise“  verwendet  und  in  der  Richtlinie  zur  Gleichbehandlung  ohne  Unterschied 
der Rasse und der Richtlinie zur Gleichbehandlung im Bereich der Beschäftigung nicht als 
spezielle  Form  von  Diskriminierung  anerkannt  ist.  Das  GVD  verbietet  Vereinigung  zum 
Zweck  der  Diskriminierung,  worunter  unter  anderem  die  Anstiftung  zu  nationalistisch, 
rassistisch, religiös oder anderweitig motiviertem Hass und zu Spaltung und Feindschaft 
gezählt wird. Anweisung zur Diskriminierung wird im GVD erwähnt, jedoch nicht definiert. 
Belästigung  wird  mit  Herabwürdigung  zusammengefasst  und  als  spezielle  Form  von 
Diskriminierung  anerkannt.  Allerdings 
ist  diese  Bestimmung  verwirrend,  weil 
Herabwürdigung  ein  mögliches  Element  von  Belästigung  darstellt,  der  Begriff 
„Belästigung“ selbst jedoch nicht definiert wird. 

Das  GVD  erlaubt  einige  Ausnahmen  vom  Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatz.  So  stellen 
„Maßnahmen  mit  dem  Zweck,  die  völlige  Chancengleichheit,  den  Schutz  und  die 
Förderung  von  Einzelpersonen  oder  eine  Gruppe  von  Personen  zu  gewährleisten,  die  in 
einer  nachteiligen  Situation  sind,  keine  Diskriminierung  dar“  (Art. 14).  Mittelbare 
Diskriminierung kann gerechtfertigt sein, wenn sie ein rechtmäßiges Ziel verfolgt und die 
Mittel zur Erreichung dieses Ziels angemessen und erforderlich sind. Ungleichbehandlung, 
Ausgrenzung oder Bevorzugung aufgrund der speziellen Anforderungen einer Tätigkeit ist 
zulässig,  wenn  die  persönlichen  Eigenschaften  eine  wesentliche  und  entscheidende 
Voraussetzung  für  die  Ausübung  der  Tätigkeit  darstellen  und  es  sich  um  einen 
rechtmäßigen  Zweck  handelt.  Außerdem  gilt  das  Verhalten  von  religiösen  Amtsträgern, 
das  einer  religiösen  Doktrin,  Weltanschauung  oder  anderen  Zielen  von  Kirchen  oder 
religiösen  Vereinigungen  entspricht,  die  gemäß  dem  Gesetz  zur  Regelung  der 
Religionsfreiheit und des Status von Kirchen und religiösen Vereinigungen in das Register 
der  religiösen  Vereinigungen  eingetragen  sind,  nicht  als  Diskriminierung.  Dieser  Artikel 
ist  problematisch,  weil  er  eine  Blankobefreiung  für  religiöse  Amtsträger  darstellt,  denen 
somit  Diskriminierung  erlaubt  ist,  wenn  ihre  religiösen  Doktrinen  dies  erfordern  oder 
erlauben.  

Eine der weitreichendsten Bestimmungen der Richtlinie zur Gleichbehandlung im Bereich 
der  Beschäftigung  ist  Artikel 5,  der  eine  Verpflichtung  zu  angemessenen  Vorkehrungen 
für Menschen mit Behinderungen enthält. Diese Pflicht ist nicht im GVD enthalten und gilt 
ausschließlich für den Diskriminierungsgrund Behinderung. Andererseits zählt das GVDMB 
mehrere Fälle auf, in denen Diskriminierung gerechtfertigt ist, obwohl die meisten davon 
positive  Maßnahmen 
im  Sinne  von  Artikel 8  betreffen.  Die  problematischste 
Rechtfertigung  ist  jedoch  in  Artikel 19  Absatz 2  des  GbRBMB  enthalten,  der  es  erlaubt, 
spezielle Klassen für Kindereinzurichten, deren geistige Fähigkeiten nicht ausreichen, um 
dem regulären Unterricht zu folgen. 

Mehrfachdiskriminierung  gilt  in  Serbien  als  schwere  Form  der  Diskriminierung;  in  Fällen 
von Mehrfachdiskriminierung bzw. intersektioneller Diskriminierung können daher härtere 
Strafen verhängt werden.86 

86   Art. 13 GVD. 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
4. Sachlicher Geltungsbereich 

als 

„jede 

definiert 

Das GVD gilt für alle Bereiche des öffentlichen und privaten Lebens, da Artikel 2 Absatz 1 
Diskriminierung 
oder 
Ungleichbehandlung“  aufgrund  einer  persönlichen  Eigenschaft.  Allerdings  erkennt  das 
GVD  einige  Sonderfälle  von  Diskriminierung  an,  z. B.  Diskriminierung  in  Verfahren  vor 
einer  staatlichen  Verwaltungsbehörde,  Diskriminierung  bei  der  Bereitstellung  von 
öffentlichen  Dienstleistungen  und  bei  der  Nutzung  von  Anlagen  und  Räumen  sowie 
Diskriminierung  in  den  Bereichen  Beschäftigung  und  Bildung.  Somit  geht  der  sachliche 
Anwendungsbereich des GVD über die Bereiche hinaus, die von den beiden EU-Richtlinien 
abgedeckt sind.  

ungerechtfertigte  Diskriminierung 

Das Verbot von Diskriminierung im Arbeitsleben gilt sowohl für den privaten, als auch für 
den öffentlichen Sektor. 

Das  GVD  bezieht  weder  die  betriebliche  Altersversorgung  noch  Sozialleistungen  noch 
selbständige  Erwerbstätigkeit  mit  ein,  und  es  ist  unklar,  ob  es  für  Sozialschutz  und 
Wohnraumversorgung  gilt.  Auch  wenn  einige  dieser  Bereiche,  etwa  selbständige 
Erwerbstätigkeit  und  Wohnraumversorgung,  in  bestimmten  anderen  Gesetzen  geregelt 
sind, sollten diese Bestimmungen in das GVD eingebunden werden.  

Das  GVD  erwähnt  nur  den  Zugang  zu  Dienstleistungen,  nicht  aber  ausdrücklich  den 
Zugang zu Gütern.  

5. Rechtsdurchsetzung 

Zivilverfahren in Diskriminierungssachen sind in drei Antidiskriminierungsgesetzen (GVD, 
GVDMB und Gleichstellungsgesetz) geregelt. Grundsätzlich gelten die Bestimmungen des 
allgemeinen Prozessrechts, sofern nicht ausdrücklich ein anderes Verfahren festgelegt ist 
für 
jedoch  notwendig,  ein 
(Lex 
Diskriminierungsfälle  einzurichten,  um  einen  wirksamen  und  effizienten  zivilrechtlichen 
Schutz  vor  Diskriminierung  gemäß  den  internationalen  und  europäischen  Standards  in 
diesem Bereich zu gewährleisten.  

spezielles  Verfahren 

specialis).  Es  war 

Das  GVDMB  enthält  spezielle  Verfahrensvorschriften,  um  Klagen  gegen  die 
Diskriminierung  von  Menschen  mit  Behinderungen  zu  erleichtern.  Das  Verfahren  zur 
Einreichung  einer  zivilrechtlichen  Klage  in  Diskriminierungsfällen  ist  jedoch  im  GVD 
geregelt,  wobei  jeder  Klage  einreichen  kann,  der  sich  diskriminiert  fühlt.  Das  Gesetz 
enthält  außerdem  Vorschriften  für  die  Rechtsmittel,  die  Opfern  von  Diskriminierung  zur 
Verfügung  stehen.  Nach  dem  GVD  kann  das  Opfer  eine  einstweilige  Verfügung 
beantragen,  über  die  das  Gericht  innerhalb  von  drei  Tagen  entscheiden  muss.  Die 
Verfahren  müssen  mit  besonderer  Dringlichkeit  durchgeführt  werden  (Art. 41  Abs. 3). 
Außerdem sieht Artikel 45 des GVD eine Verlagerung der Beweislast von der Klägerpartei 
auf die beklagte Partei vor. 

Nach  Artikel 41  GVD  kann  jede  Person,  die  sich  wegen  einer  diskriminierenden 
Behandlung  für  beschwert  hält,  Klage  einreichen.  Kläger  können  folgende  Maßnahmen 
beantragen: 

1) 

2) 

Verbot  einer  Handlung,  durch  die  eine  Diskriminierung  droht,  Verbot  der 
Fortsetzung  einer  diskriminierenden  Handlung oder  Verbot  der  Wiederholung  einer 
diskriminierenden Handlung, 
Feststellung  durch  das  Gericht,  dass  die  beklagte  Partei  die  Klagepartei  oder  eine 
dritte Partei diskriminiert hat, 

3)  Maßnahmen zur Abhilfe der Folgen der diskriminierenden Behandlung, 
4) 
5) 

Entschädigung für den erlittenen materiellen und immateriellen Schaden und  
Veröffentlichung des Urteils. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Artikel 46  sieht  außerdem  vor,  dass  sowohl  der/die  Gleichbehandlungsbeauftragte  als 
auch Organisationen, die sich für den Schutz der Menschenrechte oder der Rechte einer 
bestimmten Gruppe einsetzen, vor Gericht klagen können. 

Ausdrücklich  erlaubt  sind  positive  Maßnahmen  in  der  serbischen  Verfassung  (Art. 21 
Abs. 4) und im GVD (Art. 14); angewendet werden sie vor allem in Bezug auf Frauen im 
Bereich  Politik,  in  Bezug  auf  Roma  im  Bereich  Bildung  und  in  Bezug  auf  Menschen  mit 
Behinderungen im Bereich Beschäftigung. 

6. Gleichbehandlungsstellen 

Die  Institution  der/des  Gleichbehandlungsbeauftragten  wurde  im  Rahmen  des  GVD  als 
unabhängige  und  eigenständige  staatliche  Fachstelle  eingerichtet,  die  über  ein 
umfassendes  Mandat  zur  Förderung  von  Gleichbehandlung  und  Antidiskriminierung  in 
allen  gesellschaftlichen  Bereichen  verfügt.  Der  oder  die  Beauftragte  hat  zwei 
Hauptaufgaben:  die  Verhinderung  von  und  den  Schutz  vor  Diskriminierung.  Der 
Gleichbehandlungsstelle stehen zahlreiche Mittel zur Verfügung, von denen aus Sicht der 
von 
Diskriminierungsopfer 
Diskriminierungsbeschwerden,  die  Einreichung  strategischer  Klagen  und  die  Erstattung 
von Strafanzeigen besonders wichtig sind.87 

Entgegennahme 

Untersuchung 

sicher 

und 

die 

Das  Verfahren  zur  Einreichung  von  Beschwerden  bei  der/dem  Beauftragten  ist  in 
Artikel 35  bis  40  geregelt,  und  als  grundsätzliche  Regel  gilt,  dass  die  allgemeinen 
Vorschriften  der  Verwaltungsverfahrensordnung  auch  bei  Verfahren  zur  Anwendung 
kommen,  an  denen  der/die  Beauftragte  beteiligt  ist.  Eingehende  Beschwerden  müssen 
innerhalb  von  15  Tagen  an  die  beschwerte  Partei  weitergeleitet  werden,  die  dann 
15 Tage  Zeit  hat,  sich  zu  der  Beschwerde  zu  äußern.  Der/die  Beauftragte  kann  ein 
Schlichtungsverfahren durchführen, wenn beide Parteien dem zustimmen. Dies entspricht 
Artikel 7  Absatz 1  der  Richtlinie  zur  Gleichbehandlung  ohne  Unterschied  der  Rasse,  der 
die  Mitgliedstaaten  verpflichtet  sicherzustellen,  dass  Opfer  ihre  Ansprüche  auf  dem 
Gerichts-  und/oder  Verwaltungsweg  sowie,  wenn  die  Mitgliedstaaten  es  für  angezeigt 
halten, in Schlichtungsverfahren geltend machen können. Wird der Streit jedoch nicht in 
einem  Schlichtungsverfahren  geregelt,  so  muss  der/die  Beauftragte  innerhalb  von 
90 Tagen  nach  Eingang  der  Beschwerde  sich  dazu  Stellung  nehmen,  ob  das 
Diskriminierungsverbot verletzt wurde, und den/die Beschwerdeführer/in und die Person, 
gegen  die  sich  die  Beschwerde  richtet,  darüber  unterrichten.  Stellt  der/die  Beauftragte 
eine Verletzung fest, so erteilt er/sie der Person, gegen die sich die Beschwerde richtet, 
eine  Empfehlung,  in  der  Mittel  zur  Abhilfe  der  Verletzung  vorgeschlagen  werden.  Die 
Person,  an  die  sich  die  Empfehlung  richtet,  muss  diese  befolgen  und  der  betreffenden 
Verletzung  innerhalb  von  30 Tagen  abhelfen.  Außerdem  muss  sie  den/die  Beauftragte/n 
über  die  Durchführung  der  Maßnahmen  informieren.  Wird  der  Verletzung  innerhalb  von 
30  Tagen  nicht  abgeholfen,  kann  der/die  Beauftragte  dies  in  elektronischen  Medien  und 
Printmedien  öffentlich  machen,  jedoch  keine  Sanktionen  verhängen.  Er/sie  kann  jedoch 
ein  Ordnungswidrigkeitsverfahren  beantragen,  Strafanzeige  stellen  oder  Klage 
einreichen, wenn der Fall von strategischer Bedeutung ist. 

2016 hat die Gleichbehandlungsstelle zahlreiche Aufklärungsmaßnahmen zu den Themen 
Diskriminierung  und  Möglichkeiten  des  Schutzes  vor  Diskriminierung  durchgeführt  und 
die  regionale  Zusammenarbeit  angestoßen.  Der  Jahresbericht  wurde  fristgerecht  (am 

87   Der/die Gleichbehandlungsbeauftragte kann der beschwerdeführenden Person auch Auskunft erteilen und 
eine Schlichtung empfehlen; er/sie legt der Nationalversammlung einen Jahresbericht und Sonderberichte 
vor, warnt die Öffentlichkeit vor den häufigsten, typischsten und schwersten Formen von Diskriminierung, 
überwacht die Umsetzung von Gesetzen und sonstigen Vorschriften, initiiert die Verabschiedung oder 
Änderung von Regelungen, gibt Stellungnahmen zum Inhalt von Gesetzentwürfen und anderer Regularien 
ab, etabliert und unterhält die Zusammenarbeit mit verschiedenen Gremien und Organisationen und 
empfiehlt Verwaltungsbehörden und anderen Einrichtungen Maßnahmen zur Sicherstellung von 
Gleichbehandlung. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
15. März 2017) vorgelegt und zeigt, dass die Gleichbehandlungsbeauftragte im Jahr 2016 
insgesamt  626 Beschwerden  entgegengenommen, 
in  51  Fällen  Stellungnahmen 
abgegeben,  40 Stellungnahmen 
zu  Gesetzentwürfen  und  allgemeinen  Akten 
herausgegeben  sowie  drei  Strafverfahren,  ein  Ordnungswidrigkeitsverfahren,  neun 
Verwarnungen und 25 Bekanntmachungen initiiert hat.88 

Am  30.  Oktober  2015  erhielt  die  Beauftragte  schließlich  eine  Entscheidung  über  den 
Umzug  in  neue  Räumlichkeiten,89  die  den  räumlichen  und  technischen  Anforderungen 
entsprechen  sollten.  Seit  Oktober  2016  arbeitet  die  Gleichbehandlungsstelle  in  diesen 
neuen Räumlichkeiten, die es außerdem erlauben, weitere 19 Personen in verschiedenen 
Positionen  und  50 Büroangestellte  zu  beschäftigen.  Im  März 2014  wurde  außerdem  ein 
Regionalbüro in Novi Pazar eröffnet. Es hat die Erwartungen jedoch nicht erfüllt, da sich 
nur  wenige  Bürgerinnen  und  Bürger  an  die  Stelle  gewandt  haben  und  die  Zahl  der 
Beschwerden in diesem Teil Serbiens nach wie vor gering ist.90 

7. Schlüsselprobleme 

1. 

Übereinstimmung mit den beiden Gleichbehandlungsrichtlinien der EU 

Das serbische Recht entspricht im Wesentlichen den beiden Gleichbehandlungsrichtlinien 
der EU aus dem Jahr 2000. Allerdings gibt es einige Widersprüche und Zweideutigkeiten, 
die eine weitere juristische Klärung oder eine Gesetzesänderung erfordern: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

die 

auf 

jedoch  nur 

„Familienmitglieder“  und  Menschen, 

Diskriminierung  aufgrund  von  Assoziierung  wird  im  GVD  zwar  anerkannt,  bezieht 
sich 
dem 
Diskriminierungsopfer nahe stehen,  
die  Definition  von  unmittelbarer  Diskriminierung  entspricht  der  Definition  in  den 
EU-Richtlinien,  ist  jedoch  auf  eine  weniger  günstige  Behandlung  beschränkt  und 
enthält nicht den Begriff des Nachteils,  
die  Definition  von  mittelbarer  Diskriminierung  ist  nicht  konditional  formuliert 
(„können“)  und  kann  daher  so  ausgelegt  werden,  dass  sie  nur  für  eine  tatsächlich 
vorgekommene  Benachteiligung  gilt,  wodurch  es  unmöglich  wird,  gegen  neutrale 
Vorschriften vorzugehen, bevor ein Opfer tatsächlich benachteiligt wird,  
Anweisung  zur  Diskriminierung  ist  im  GVD  nicht  definiert  und  sollte  in  das  Gesetz 
aufgenommen werden, 
das  GVD  legt  nicht  ausdrücklich  fest,  dass  Situationstests  vor  Gericht  als  Beweis 
zulässig  sind.  Diese  mangelnde  Klarheit lässt  viele  Fragen  offen  (zum  Beispiel  wer 
die Testperson ist, ob Testpersonen ein bestimmtes Verhältnis zu der Person haben 
dürfen,  die  wegen  Diskriminierung  klagt,  ob  die  Testpersonen  früher  diskriminiert 
wurden, usw.), 
das GVD enthält keine speziellen Vorschriften über statistische Daten, das Fallrecht 
ist noch recht beschränkt und es ist nicht klar, wie die Gerichte statistische Beweise 
bewerten, 
das  GVD  gilt  nicht  für  Betriebsrenten,  soziale  Vergünstigungen  und  selbständige 
Beschäftigung und es ist unklar, ob es für Sozialschutz und Wohnraum gilt. Obwohl 
andere  Gesetze  einige  dieser  Bereiche,  wie  selbständige  Beschäftigung  und 
Wohnraum,  regulieren,  sollten  entsprechende  Bestimmungen 
in  das  GVD 
aufgenommen werden, 
das  GVD  erwähnt  nur  den  Zugang  zu  Dienstleistungen  und  nicht  ausdrücklich  den 
Zugang zu Gütern, 

88   Gleichbehandlungsbeauftragte (2016), Ordentlicher Jahresbericht der Gleichbehandlungsbeauftragten für 

2015, Belgrad, S. 8. 

89   Gleichbehandlungsbeauftragte (2016), Ordentlicher Jahresbericht der Gleichbehandlungsbeauftragten für 

2015, Belgrad, S. 28. 

90   Gleichbehandlungsbeauftragte (2017), Ordentlicher Jahresbericht der Gleichbehandlungsbeauftragten für 

2016, Belgrad, S. 16. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 
- 

das  GVD  sollte  Segregation  als  eine  schwere  Form  von  Diskriminierung 
berücksichtigen, 
in  das  GVD  müssen  Vorschriften  über  angemessene  Vorkehrungen  für  Menschen 
mit Behinderungen aufgenommen werden, 
das  nationale  Recht  kennt  keine  Ausnahme  für  Arbeitgeber,  deren  Ethos  auf 
religiösen  Grundsätzen  oder  Weltanschauungen  beruht,  gewährt  jedoch  religiösen 
Amtsträgern  eine  Blankovollmacht  zur  Diskriminierung,  wenn  dies  von  ihrer 
religiösen Doktrin gefordert oder erlaubt ist,  
für  unmittelbare 
das  GVD  enthält  keine  ausdrückliche  Ausnahmeregelung 
Diskriminierung aufgrund des Alters, daher ist hier eine weitere juristische Klärung, 
insbesondere in Bezug auf die Prüfung der Verhältnismäßigkeit erforderlich,  
obwohl  es  zahlreiche  Sanktionsmöglichkeiten  in  Diskriminierungsfällen  gibt,  ist 
deren  Anwendung  in  der  Praxis  mit  Problemen  behaftet,  z.  B.  reduzieren  lange 
Verfahren  und  milde  Sanktionen  die  Wirksamkeit  und  Verhältnismäßigkeit  der 
Sanktionen, 
das  GVDMB  bietet  keinen  Schutz  vor  Viktimisierung,  und  die  Definition  von 
Viktimisierung  im  GVD  muss  dem  Unionsrecht  stärker  angeglichen  werden,  da  sie 
keinen ausdrücklichen Kündigungsschutz enthält, 
das GVDMB enthält keine Bestimmungen zur Umkehrung der Beweislast, 
das serbische Recht erlaubt in Diskriminierungsfällen keine Sammelklagen. 

2. 

Umsetzung des geltenden Rechtsrahmens 

Auch wenn der Rechtsrahmen im Bereich Gleichbehandlung in Serbien die einschlägigen 
EU-Normen  im  Wesentlichen  erfüllt,  sind  in  der  Praxis  doch  einige  Probleme  bei  der 
Umsetzung festzustellen: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Die  Umsetzung  der  Strategie  zur  Prävention  von  und  zum  Schutz  vor 
Diskriminierung  erfordert  ein  stärker  proaktives  und  systematisches  Vorgehen; 
einige  Probleme  benötigen  dringende  Aufmerksamkeit,  zum  Beispiel  muss  die 
soziale  Eingliederung  von  Menschen  mit  Behinderungen  und  von  Roma  verbessert 
werden und dies gilt auch für die Situation von LGBTI-Personen und von Menschen 
mit HIV/AIDS. 
Die Republik Serbien verfügt noch nicht über ein einheitliches und zentrales System 
zur Erfassung von Daten über die Funktion des Rechtsschutzes vor Diskriminierung. 
Dies erschwert die Analyse und Überwachung des Problems Diskriminierung enorm, 
obwohl  die  Fallzahlen  von  Jahr  zu  Jahr  zunehmen,  sind  sie  im  Vergleich  zur 
Häufigkeit  von  Diskriminierung  in  allen  gesellschaftlichen  Bereich  noch  immer 
verschwindend gering. Gründe hierfür sind mangelndes Bewusstsein und fehlendes 
Wissen  über  Diskriminierung  und  der  fehlende  Wille  der  Opfer,  ihre  Rechte 
durchzusetzen. 
Obwohl  bereits  viele  Polizisten  und  Richter  verschiedener  Rechtsbereiche  zum 
Thema  Gleichbehandlungsrecht 
fortgebildet  wurden,  muss  der  Staat  seine 
Fortbildungsmaßnahmen  in  Zusammenarbeit  mit  internationalen  Organisationen 
und Experten weiter fortsetzen. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

The national legal system 

The Republic of Serbia is a constitutional, multi-party, parliamentary democracy. It has a 
history  of  being  a  federal  unit  within  a  federal  state  –  the  Socialist  Federal  Republic  of 
Yugoslavia  (SFRY).  After  the  dissolution  of  the  SFRY  during  the  1990s,  it  was  again 
structured as a federal state with two federal units and known as the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia (FRY). From 2003 to 2006, Serbia was part of the State Union of Serbia and 
Montenegro,  into  which  the  Federal  Republic  of  Yugoslavia  had  been  transformed.  On  5 
June  2006,  the  National  Assembly  of  Serbia  declared  Serbia  the  successor  to  the  State 
Union, following a decision by the Parliament of Montenegro declaring the independence 
of Montenegro. Thus Serbia finally became a single state. The legal competence for anti-
discrimination  law  is  therefore  directly  applicable  in  all  parts  of  the  State,  as  Serbia  is 
now a unitary state. 

List of main legislation transposing and implementing the directives 

In  the  past  decade,  several  general  and  specialised  anti-discrimination  laws  have  been 
adopted in the Republic of Serbia. 

The  Law  on  the  Prohibition  of  Discrimination  (LPD)  was  adopted  on  26  March  2009,91 
thereby  establishing  an  integral  system  of  protection  from  discrimination  within  the 
country’s  legal  system.  It  entered  into  force  on  3  April  2009  (except  for  the  provisions 
relating  to  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  (Poverenik  za  zaštitu 
ravnopravnosti) which entered into force on 1 January 2010). The Law on the Prohibition 
of  Discrimination  expressly  prohibits  the  following  grounds  of  discrimination:  race,  skin 
colour,  ancestry,  citizenship,  national  affiliation  or  ethnic  origin,  language,  religious  or 
political  beliefs,  gender,  gender  identity,  sexual  orientation,  financial  position,  birth, 
genetic characteristics, health, disability, marital and family status, previous convictions, 
age,  appearance  and  membership  of  political,  trade  union  and  other  organisations. 
However,  it  also  includes  other  grounds  of  discrimination,  as  it  has  an  open  clause 
containing the words ‘and other real or presumed personal characteristics’. 

 The  Law  applies  to  all  areas  of  life,  but  also  prescribes  special  cases  of  discrimination 
covering  the  following  areas:  discrimination  in  the  course  of  proceedings  conducted 
before  bodies  of  the  public  administration,  discrimination  in  the  employment  sector, 
discrimination in the provision of public services and in the use of premises and spaces, 
and discrimination in the sphere of education and professional training.  

The  Law has not  yet been amended, although during 2016 intensive consultations  were 
undertaken on changes to further align the text with the EU acquis.  

The  Law  on  the  Prevention  of  Discrimination  against  Persons  with  Disabilities  (LPDPD) 
prohibits discrimination based on disability.92 The Law was adopted on 17 April 2006 and 
entered into force  on 1 January 2007.93 This Law prohibits discrimination on the ground 

91   Serbia, Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination (Zakon o zabrani diskriminacije), Official Gazette of the 

Republic of Serbia, no. 22/2009, 26 March 2009; English version available at 
www.ravnopravnost.gov.rs/en/laws/laws-and-regulations-of-the-republic-of-serbia, last accessed on 15 
March 2017. 

92   The position of people with disabilities is further supported by two pieces of legislation adopted in 2015: the 

Law on the Use of Guide Dogs (Serbia, Law on the Use of Guide Dog (Zakon o kretanju uz pomoć psa 
vodiča), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 29/2015, 31 March 2015) and the Law on the Use of 
Sign Language, Serbia (Law on the Use of Sign Language (Zakon o upotrebi znakovnog jezika), Official 
Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 38/2015, 7 May 2015). 

93   Serbia, Law on the Prevention of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities (Zakon o sprečavanju 
diskriminacije osoba sa invaliditetom), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 33/2006, 17 April 
2006. Serbia, Amendments to the Law on the Prevention of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
of disability and aims to promote the inclusion of people with disabilities in all spheres of 
society. It addresses various forms of discrimination against people with disabilities which 
were previously included piecemeal in a number of different laws (such as social security, 
employment  and  labour  laws,  family  law,  public  healthcare  laws,  public  education  laws, 
pension  and  disability  laws,  etc.).  The  Law  was  amended  on  12  February  2016,94 
stipulating  in  Article  34,  para.  3  that  public  authorities  are  obliged  to  allow  the  use 
personal facsimile signature stamps by people with disabilities,  especially those who are 
blind  or  visually  impaired,  for  the  signing  of  legal  documents.  Article  34a  extends  this 
duty  to  other  legal  entities  and  individuals.  Finally,  Article  34a  prescribes  a  criminal 
penalty in the event of this right being denied. This Law was followed by the Law on the 
Professional  Rehabilitation  and  Employment  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  (LPREPD),95 
which was adopted with the aim of creating the possibility for greater numbers of people 
with  disabilities  to  be  included  in  the  open  labour  market  and  to  improve  the  quality  of 
their  employability  and/or  employment.  The  Law  was  amended  on  8  April  and  entered 
into force on 16 April 2013.96  

The  Law  on  the  Protection  of  the  Rights  and  Freedoms  of  National  Minorities97  was 
adopted  on  27  February  and  entered  into  force  on  7  March  2003.  The  Law  defines 
national minorities as citizens who are numerically sufficiently representative and belong 
to a group of residents with a long-term and firm bond with the territory of a state, and 
who  possess  ‘characteristics  such  as  language,  culture,  national  or  ethnic  affiliation, 
origin or confession, differentiating them from the majority of the population and whose 
members  are  distinguished  by  efforts  to  collectively  nurture  their  common  identity, 
including  their  culture,  tradition,  language  or  religion’.  This  definition  of  national 
minorities thus excludes migrants from its application.  

It provides protection to national minorities from all forms of discrimination in  exercising 
their  civil  rights  and  freedoms,  and  the  duty  of  public  officials  to  refrain  from  acts  and 
regulations  that  are  discriminatory  towards  them.  It  further  creates  instruments  that 
guarantee and protect the special rights of minorities to minority self-governance in the 
fields  of  education,  use  of  language,  media  and  culture.  The  law  regulates  the  way  in 
which the rights of people belonging to national minorities are implemented. Those rights 
include  the  right  of  national  affiliation,  the  right  to  co-operate  with  co-nationals  in  the 
country  and  abroad,  the  right  to  use  one’s  native  language,  the  right  to  use  national 
symbols and all the other rights which protect the specificity of national minorities in the 
fields  of  special  interest  to  them  (use  of  the  language  of  the  national  minorities  in  the 
work of public bodies and agencies, education and public information in the languages of 
the  national  minorities,  preservation  and  protection  of  cultural  heritage,  etc.).  The  law 
has been amended several times, in 2003, 2009 and 2013.98 

(Izmene i dopune Zakona o sprečavanju diskriminacije osoba sa invaliditetom), Official Gazette of the 
Republic of Serbia, no. 13/2016, 19 February 2016. 

94   Serbia, The Law on the Amendments to the Law on Prevention of Discrimination against Persons with 

Disabilities, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 13/16, 19 February 2016. 

95   Serbia, Law on the Professional Rehabilitation and Employment of Persons with Disabilities (Zakon o 
profesionalnoj rehabilitaciji i zapošljavanju osoba sa invaliditetom), Official Gazette of the Republic of 
Serbia, no. 36/2009, 17 April 2006. 

96   Serbia, Amendments to the Law on the Professional Rehabilitation and Employment of Persons with 

Disabilities (Izmene i dopune Zakona o profesionalnoj rehabilitaciji i zapošljavanju osoba sa invaliditetom), 
Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 32/2013, 8 April 2013. 

97   Serbia, Law on the Protection of the Rights and Freedoms of National Minorities (Zakon o zaštiti prava i 

sloboda nacionalnih manjina), Official Gazette of FRY, no. 11 of 27 February 2002, Official Gazette of Serbia 
and Montenegro, no. 1/2003 – Constitutional Charter, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 
72/2009 – other law, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 97/2013 – decision of the Constitutional 
Court, 27 February 2003. 

98   On 3 March 2016, the Action Plan for Exercising the Rights of National Minorities was adopted, as envisaged 
by the Action Plan for negotiation Chapter 23. It completes Serbia’s strategic commitment aimed at the 
improvement of the institutional and legislative framework in the field of human and minority rights. The 
document contains 11 chapters: personal status; prohibition of discrimination; culture and media; freedom 
of religion; the use of language and script; education; democratic participation; representation of national 

29 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
The Labour Law99 was adopted on 15 March and entered into force on 23 March 2005. It 
provides  specific  provisions  against  discrimination  at  work  and  related  to  employment. 
Thus,  while  the  LPD  contains  general  anti-discrimination  provisions,  the  Labour  Law 
provides  for  more  specific  provisions  related  to  discrimination  at  work  and  entitles 
employees to initiate lawsuits and claim damages based on anti-discrimination provisions 
contained within it. It contains an open anti-discrimination clause, but explicitly mentions 
the  following  grounds  of  discrimination:  gender,  birth,  language,  race,  skin  colour,  age, 
pregnancy,  health  condition,  disability,  nationality,  religion,  marital  status,  family 
commitments,  sexual  orientation,  political  or  other  belief,  social  background,  financial 
capacity, and membership of political, labour union or other organisations. In particular, 
the  Labour  Law  prohibits  discrimination  with  respect  to  employment  conditions  and  the 
choice  of  candidates  for  an  employment  position;  working  conditions  and  rights; 
professional  development  and  training;  career  development;  and  termination  of 
employment by the employer. The Law has been amended several times, in 2005, 2009, 
2013 and 2014.  

Many  other  laws  also  contain  anti-discrimination  provisions,  such  as  the  Law  on 
Fundamentals  of  the  Education  System,100  which  introduces  inclusive  education  and 
prohibits  discrimination  in  education,  the  Law  on  Youth,101  the  Law  on  Preschool 
Education,102 the Law on Churches and Religious Organisations,103 etc.  

On 28 January 2016, the Law  on the Police104 was adopted and  entered into force  on 5 
January  2016.  Article  5  prescribes  that  police  officers  must  treat  everyone  equally, 
irrespective of their ‘race, sex or ethnicity, social origin, birth, religion, political or other 
conviction or orientation, gender and gender identity, financial status, culture, language, 
age and mental and physical disability’.105 

On 8 February 2016, the new Law on Sports106 was adopted and entered into force on 18 
February 2016. Article 4, para. 3  of this law  prohibits direct and indirect discrimination, 
including  hate  speech,  against  sportspeople,  sports  professionals,  sports  organisations, 
and  other  participants  in  sport,  on  any  real  or  presumed  ground.107  This  Law  also 
prohibits  any  discrimination  and  violence  against  children,  and  includes  an  obligation  to 
increase  the  participation  of  children,  young  people,  women  and  people  with  disabilities 
in  sporting  activities,  as  well  as  the  popularisation  of  women’s  sports  organisations  and 
giving equal importance to women and people with disabilities in sport.  

minorities in public sector and public enterprises; national councils; economic position of national 
communities; and international cooperation. 

99   Serbia, Labour Law (Zakon o radu), Official Journal of the Republic of Serbia, no. 24/2005, 61/2005, 

54/2009, 32/2013, no. 75/2014, 15 March 2005. 

100  Serbia, Law on the Fundamentals of the Education System (Zakon o osnovama sistema 

obrazovanja i vaspitanja), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 72/09, 52/2011, 55/2013, 35/2015 
authentic interpretation, 68/2015, 62/2016 – CC decision, 31 August 2009. 

101  Serbia, Law on Youth (Zakon o mladima), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 50/2011, 8 July 

2011. 

102  Serbia, Law on Preschool Education (Zakon o predškolskom vaspitanju i obrazovanju), Official Gazette of 

the Republic of Serbia, no. 18/2010, 3 May 2010. 

103  Serbia, Law on Churches and Religious Organisations (Zakon o crkvama i verskim zajednicama), Official 

Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 36/2006, 27 April 2006. 

104  Serbia, Law on the Police (Zakon o policiji), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 6/2016, 28 

January 2016. 

105  This provision is a closed list of grounds and does not include all grounds of discrimination, including sexual 
orientation. Furthermore, terms are not defined in the Law and there has been no case law that could clarify 
some of the terms used in this provision. However, Article 67 further prescribes that police officers must act 
impartially, giving everyone equal legal protection and acting without discrimination on any ground (which is 
an open-ended list of grounds). In the exercise of police powers, police officers are obliged to act humanely, 
respecting human and minority rights of citizens by giving priority to the rights of vulnerable groups.  

106  The Law on Sports (Zakon o sportu), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 10/16, 8 February 2016. 
107  Article 4, para. 4 also covers professional sportspeople and those who wish to become professionals in 

terms of employment, wages and working conditions, unless the distinction is based on the nature or real 
and decisive conditions for performing certain sporting activities, if the goals to be achieved are justified. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
The  Strategy  for  the  Prevention  of  and  Protection  from  Discrimination  was  adopted  in 
June  2013  and  was  followed  by  the  Action  Plan,  which  was  finally  adopted  in  October 
2014. In addition, 2016 saw the adoption of the Strategy for the Social Inclusion of Roma 
in  the  Republic  of  Serbia  for  the  period  from  2016  to  2025.108  The  aim  of  this  strategic 
document is to intensify the work of institutions at the national and local levels, during a 
nine-year  period,  regarding  issues  of  social  inclusion  of  Roma  and  combating  Roma 
discrimination,  as  well  as  creating  conditions  for  full  access  to  human  rights  for  people 
from  the  Roma  ethnic  minority.  The  document  covers  five  priority  areas,  namely 
education, housing, employment, healthcare and social protection. The Strategy was not 
adopted  with  a  budget  attached,  but  it  aims  to  secure  funds  from  the  Budget  of  the 
Republic  of  Serbia,  local  self-government  budgets  and  international  partners  in  order  to 
finance the measures set out in the document.  

108  Serbia, Strategy for the Social Inclusion of Roma for the period from 2016 to 2025 (Strategija za socijalno 

uključivanje Roma i Romkinja u Republici Srbiji za period od 2016. do 2025. godine), Official Gazette of the 
Republic of Serbia, no. 26/16, 10 March 2016. 

31 

 
 
                                                 
1 

GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK  

Constitutional  provisions  on  protection  against  discrimination  and  the 
promotion of equality  

The  Constitution  of  Serbia109  2006  includes  the  following  articles  dealing  with  non-
discrimination.  

Article 21 proclaims the equality of everyone before the law and the right to equal legal 
protection, without any discrimination. Article 21, para. 3, contains an anti-discrimination 
clause:  ‘Any  direct  or  indirect  discrimination  on  any  grounds,  particularly  race,  sex, 
national  origin,  social  origin,  birth,  religion,  political  or  other  opinion,  property  status, 
culture, language, age, mental or physical disability, shall be prohibited.’  

The Constitution does not provide a definition of discrimination, but prohibits both direct 
and  indirect  discrimination.  It  also  makes  provision  for  the  prohibition  of  discrimination 
on any ground, not just those explicitly mentioned in Article 21, meaning that the list is 
not  exhaustive.  Thus,  this  provision  applies  to  all  areas  covered  by  the  EU  directives, 
although  sexual  orientation is  not  explicitly  included in  Article  21.  In  Article  21,  para.  4 
the  Serbian  Constitution  recognises  affirmative  action,  stating  that,  ‘special  measures 
which the Republic of Serbia may introduce to achieve full equality of individuals or group 
of individuals in a substantially unequal position compared to  other citizens shall not be 
deemed discrimination’. 

Article  15  guarantees  gender  equality  and  states  that,  ‘The  State  shall  guarantee  the 
equality  of  women  and  men  and  develop  equal  opportunities  policy’.  The  Constitution 
also contains Article 62 which guarantees the equality of spouses. 

Article  76  provides  that,  ‘Persons  belonging  to  national  minorities  shall  be  guaranteed 
equality before the law and equal legal protection’ (para. 1), and that, ‘Any discrimination 
on  the  grounds  of  affiliation  to  a  national  minority  shall  be  prohibited’  (para.  2). 
Paragraph  3  of  this  article  states  that,  ‘specific  regulations  and  provisional  measures 
which the Republic of Serbia may introduce in economic, social, cultural and political life 
for  the  purpose  of  achieving  full  equality  among  members  of  a  national  minority  and 
citizens  who  belong  to  the  majority,  shall  not  be  considered  discrimination  if  they  are 
aimed  at  eliminating  extremely  unfavourable  living  conditions  which  particularly  affect 
them’. 

Articles 15 and 76 also apply to all areas covered by the directives, as the material scope 
of  the  above-mentioned  provisions  is  broader  than  those  of  the  directives  (including 
economic, social, cultural and political life) 

These provisions are directly applicable, while Article 15, Article 21, para. 4, and Article 
76,  para.  3,  require  further  adoption  of  laws  and  regulations  that  will  enable  their 
implementation. 

The constitutional equality clause prescribed in Article 21, para. 3, and Article 76, para. 
2, can be enforced against the state, as well as against private actors. 

109  Serbia, Constitution of Serbia (Ustav Republike Srbije), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 

98/2006, 10 November 2006. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2 

THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION  

2.1  Grounds of unlawful discrimination explicitly covered  

The  Constitution  contains  a  brief  list  of  prohibited  grounds  of  discrimination,  specifically 
mentioning (in Article 21, para. 3) race, sex, national origin, social origin, birth, religion, 
political  or  other  opinion,  property  status,  culture,  language,  age,  mental  or  physical 
disability.  Article  2,  para.  1,  of  the  comprehensive  anti-discrimination  Law  on  the 
Prohibition  of  Discrimination  (LPD)  contains  a  longer  list  of  prohibited  grounds, 
specifically  mentioning  race,  skin  colour,  ancestry,  citizenship,  national  affiliation  or 
ethnic  origin,  language,  religious  or  political  beliefs,  gender,  gender  identity,  sexual 
orientation, financial position, birth, genetic characteristics, health, disability, marital and 
family status, previous convictions, age, appearance,  and membership of political, trade 
union and other organisations.  

The  Labour  Law110  prohibits  discrimination  based  on  sex,  birth,  language,  race,  colour, 
age,  pregnancy,  health  condition  or  disability,  national  origin,  religion,  marital  status, 
family  obligations,  sexual  orientation,  political  or  other  opinion,  social  origin,  property, 
and membership of political organisations and trade unions. 

The  Law  on  the  Police111  prohibits  discrimination  based  on  race,  sex  or  ethnicity,  social 
origin,  birth,  religion,  political  or  other  conviction  or  orientation,  gender  and  gender 
identity, financial status, culture, language, age and mental and physical disability. 

The Law on Fundamentals of the Education System112 prescribes equal rights and access 
to  education  without  discrimination  based  on  sex,  social,  cultural,  ethnic,  religious  and 
other  affiliation,  residence,  material  and  health  conditions  and  disability.  The  Law  on 
Secondary  Education113  prohibits  racial,  national,  cultural,  linguistic,  religious,  gender, 
sex  and  age  discrimination.  The  Law  Higher  Education114  prohibits  discrimination  based 
on  race,  colour,  sex,  sexual  orientation,  ethnic,  national  and  social  origin,  language, 
religion,  political  and  other  opinion,  status  acquired  by  birth,  disability  and  financial 
position. The Law on Youth115 prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, nationality, 
religious  belief,  language,  social  background,  financial  standing,  affiliation  with  political, 
trade  union  or  other  organisations,  mental  or  physical  disability,  health,  physical 
appearance, sexual orientation and gender identity. 

The Law on Public Information and Media116 prohibits incitement to discriminate based on 
belief, national, ethnic, religious, gender and  racial affiliation, political, sexual and other 
orientation, financial standing, culture, language, age, and mental or physical disability. 
The  Law on Advertising117 prohibits incitement to discriminate based  on  belief, national, 
ethnic,  religious,  gender  and  racial  affiliation,  political,  sexual  and  other  orientation, 
ancestry, financial standing, culture, language, age, and mental or physical disability.  

110  Serbia, Labour Law (Zakon o radu), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 24/2005, 61/2005, 

54/2009, 32/2013, 75/2014, 15 March 2005. 

111  Serbia, Law on the Police (Zakon o policiji), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 6/2016, 28 

January 2016. 

112  Serbia, Law on the Fundamentals of the Education System (Zakon o osnovama sistema 

obrazovanja i vaspitanja), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 72/09, 52/2011, 55/2013, 35/2015, 
authentic interpretation, 68/2015, 62/2016 – CC decision, 31 August 2009. 

113  Serbia, Law on Secondary Education (Zakon o srednjem obrazovanju i vaspitanju), Official Gazette of the 

Republic of Serbia, no. 55/2013, 25 June 2013. 

114 Serbia, Law on Higher Education (Zakon o visokom obrazovanju), no. 76/2005, 100/2007, 97/2008, 

44/2010, 93/2012, 89/2013, 99/2014, 45/2015 , 68/2015, 87/2016, 2 September. 

115  Serbia, Law on Youth (Zakon o mladima), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 50/2011, 8 July 

2011. 

116  Serbia, Law on Public Information and Media (Zakon o javnom informisanju i medijima), Official Gazette of 

the Republic of Serbia, no. 83/2014, 58/2015 i 12/2016, 5 August 2014. 

117  Serbia, Law on Advertising (Zakon o oglasavanju), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 6/2016, 28 

January 2016. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.1.1  Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the directives 

As in the EU directives, national law does not provide definitions of the different grounds 
of  discrimination.  However,  the  interpretation  of  the  terms  is  equivalent  to  those  in  EU 
law, although jurisprudence in the area of anti-discrimination is not yet very developed. 
In  addition,  since  international  law  is  directly  applicable  in  Serbia,  in  the  event  of 
inconsistencies  in  the  interpretation  of  different  terms,  the  judge  can  directly  apply 
definitions  provided  in  EU  directives  and  CJEU  jurisprudence.  Nevertheless,  judges  are 
reluctant to directly apply international norms so it is important to define some grounds 
that can be interpreted differently, such as religion which refers to theistic, atheistic and 
agnostic  beliefs,  according  to  the  jurisprudence  of  the  European  Court  of  Human 
Rights.118  

Some problems arise due to the fact that Serbia does not have a single, comprehensive 
definition  of  disability,  which  is  instead  defined  in  several  laws,  by-laws  and  policy 
documents. Some older laws contain  a medical definition of disability,119 while  Article 3, 
para.  1,  of  the  LPDPD  defines  people  with  disabilities  as  people  with  a  congenital  or 
acquired physical, sensory, intellectual or emotional (psycho-social) impairment who are, 
due  to  social  or  other  barriers,  unable  or  have  limited  opportunities  to  engage  in  social 
activities at the same level as others, regardless of whether they are capable of carrying 
out such activities with the use of technical aids or support services. This definition is not 
ad verbum taken from Article 1, para. 2, of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons 
with Disabilities, but the meaning is the same. 

On  the  other  hand,  Article  3,  para.  1  of  the  Law  on  the  Professional  Rehabilitation  and 
Employment  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  defines  people  with  disabilities  as  people  who 
live  with  the  permanent  consequences  of  a  physical,  sensory,  mental  or  psychiatric 
impairment  or  disease  that  cannot  be  eliminated  by  any  treatment  or  medical 
rehabilitation  and  are  faced  with  social  and  other  limitations  and  barriers  affecting  their 
working  capacity  and  possibility  of  finding  or  retaining  employment,  and  who  have  no 
possibility or have reduced possibilities of being involved in the labour market or applying 
for employment on equal terms with other people. This definition determines the concept 
of ‘long-term impairments’ as impairments that cannot be eliminated by any treatment or 
medical  rehabilitation,  which  creates  permanent  consequences.  Having  different 
definitions  of  disability  in  different  laws  leads  to  legal  uncertainty,  as  each  definition 
applies in the area of law which is governed by that legal instrument. 

‘Race’  and  ‘ethnic  origin’  are  not  defined  in  the  LPD  either.  Case  law  in  which  ‘race’  is 
invoked  as  a  ground  of  discrimination  is  almost  non-existent.  According  to  the  general 
annual reports by the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, in 2010120 and 2012121 
no-one  claimed  to  be  a  victim  of  race  discrimination,  while  in  2011  there  was  only  one 

118  See, e.g. ECtHR, Dimitras and Others v. Greece, App. no. 42837/06, 3269/07, 35793/07 and 6099/08, 3 

June 2013. 

119  The Law on the Fundamentals of the Education System defines a disability in the educational system as 
‘children and students with developmental impairments and disabilities’, i.e. ‘handicapped students’, 
according to the Law on Higher Education. See Serbia, Law on Higher Education (Zakon o visokom 
obrazovanju), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 76/2005, 100/2007 – authentic interpretation, 
97/2008, 94/2010, 93/2012, 89/2013, 52/2011, 99/2014, 45/2015, 68/2015, 87/2016, 26 June 2005. 
According to the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance, a disability exists when an insured person 
experiences total loss of their working capacity due to changes in their health resulting from an injury at 
work, occupational disease, injury outside of work or illness which cannot be eliminated by any treatment or 
medical rehabilitation. See Serbia, Law on Pension and Disability Insurance (Zakon o penzijskom i 
invalidskom osiguranju), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 34/2003, 64/2004 – CC decision, 
84/2004 - CC decision, 85/2005, 101/2005, 63/2006, 5/2009, 107/2009, 93/2012, 108/2013, 75/2014, 
142/2014, 2 April 2003. 

120  Commissioner for Protection of Equality (2011), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for Protection of 

Equality for 2010, Belgrade, p. 52. 

121  Commissioner for Protection of Equality (2013), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for Protection of 

Equality for 2012, Belgrade, p. 66. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
complaint,122 in 2013 five complaints123 and in 2015124 аnd 2016125 only two complaints. 
In one handbook prepared by the Commissioner’s Office, ‘race’ is explained, for example, 
as  discrimination  against  African  Americans.  National  affiliation  and  ethnic  origin  are 
considered to be one ground of discrimination and in the same handbook these grounds 
are explained as discrimination against Roma.126 Thus, it can be said that the logic of the 
Timishev  case  is  followed:  ‘race’  is  considered  to  represent  the  idea  of  a  biological 
classification  of  human  beings  into  subspecies,  while  ‘ethnic  origin’  refers  to  the  idea  of 
societal  groups  marked  by  common  characteristics,  such  as  nationality,  religion, 
language, cultural and traditional origins.127  

In  2015,  119  (18.4 %)  complaints  were  submitted  to  the  Commissioner  claiming 
discrimination  based  on  ethnicity.  The  majority  of  these  cases  dealt  with  unequal 
treatment  of  Roma  or  other  national  minorities  (Albanian,  Hungarian,  Romanian,  etc.). 
For example, a presenter reacted to  the point made by a  Minister appearing as a guest 
on  a  show  that  the  key  for  the  improvement  of  the  position  of  Roma  in  society  is 
education.  He  said  that  Roma  are  not  ‘interested  in  the  key,  but  in  the  cover  of  the 
manhole’, implying that they steal. The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality found 
that this statement violates the dignity of Roma.128  

The  current  Law  on  Asylum,  which  applies  to  asylum  seekers  and  refugees,  does  not 
contain  definitions  of  any  of  the  five  grounds  recognised  as  grounds  for  persecution.129 
However, the draft Law on Asylum and Temporary Protection suggests that race refers to 
skin  colour,  descent  and  membership  of  a  specific  ethnic  group.  This  draft  law  also 
defines the terms ‘religion’, ‘nationality’ and ‘political opinion’. Thus ‘religion’ is defined as 
‘theistic and atheistic beliefs, participation in or abstention from formal worship in private 
or in public, either alone or in community with others, other religious acts or expressions 
of faith, or forms of personal or communal conduct founded on or arising from religious 
beliefs’, while ‘nationality’ means  ‘membership of a group that is specific in terms  of its 
culture,  ethnic  or  linguistic  identity,  common  geographical  or  political  origins,  or  its 
relationship with the population of another state, and may also include citizenship.  

2.1.2  Multiple discrimination 

According to Article 13 of the LPD, multiple discrimination is recognised as a severe form 
of discrimination. Article 13 says: 

‘The following shall be considered to constitute severe forms of discrimination: 
... 
5.  discrimination  against  individuals  on  the  basis  of  two  or  more  personal 
characteristics (multiple or intersecting discrimination); 
...’ 

122  Commissioner for Protection of Equality (2012), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for Protection of 

Equality for 2011, Belgrade, p. 51., 

123  Commissioner for Protection of Equality (2014), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for Protection of 

Equality for 2013, Belgrade, p.,101. 

124  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2016), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2015, Belgrade, p. 253. 

125 Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 217. 

126  Petrusic, N. and Beker, K., Šta je diskriminacija i kako se od nje zaštititi? [What is discrimination and how to 

protect from discrimination?], Partnership for Tolerance and Protection from Discrimination in Serbia, 
www.ravnopravnost.gov.rs/jdownloads/files/jednostavna_verzija_praktikuma_za_zastitu_od_diskriminacije.
pdf, last accessed on 15 March 2017. 

127  See ECtHR, Timishev v. Russia, App. no. 55762/00 and 55974/00, 13 December 2005, para. 55, 

http://minorityrights.org/wp-content/uploads/old-site-downloads/download-218-Timishev-v.-Russia-full-
case.pdf, last accessed on 15 March 2017. 

128  Serbia, Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (Poverenik za zaštitu ravnopravnosti) N.M., N.S.R. N.M. 

v. P. TV, complaint no. 07-00-702/2015-02, opinion from 15 January 2016. 

129  Serbia, Law on Asylum (Zakon o azilu), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 109/2007, 28 

November 2007. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
This  means  that  a  more  severe  penalty  should  be  imposed  in  cases  of  multiple  or 
intersecting discrimination, in other words discrimination against individuals on the basis 
of two  or more personal characteristics, such as race,  skin colour,  ancestry, citizenship, 
national affiliation or ethnic origin, language, religious or political beliefs, gender, gender 
identity,  sexual  orientation,  financial  position,  birth,  genetic  characteristics,  health, 
disability,  marital  and  family  status,  previous  convictions,  age,  appearance,  and 
membership of political, trade union and other organisations, or any other ground. 

In  Serbia,  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  (Poverenik  za  zaštitu 
ravnopravnosti)  is  aware  of  the  negative  consequences  and  detrimental  effects  of 
multiple  discrimination,  and  acknowledges  that  multiple  discrimination  has  been 
recognised in Serbia only recently.130 

In  2016,  626  complaints  were  submitted  to  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of 
Equality.  Of  the  505  in  which  grounds  were  mentioned,  102  complaints  contain  two  or 
more  grounds  for  discrimination.  However,  this  does  not  mean  that  multiple 
discrimination was present in all these cases, as it is usual for applicants to name several 
grounds  of  discrimination  when  they  are  not  sure  what  personal  characteristic  was  the 
ground for discrimination in their case.  

The  Commissioner’s  practice  shows  that  multiple  discrimination  is  most  frequent  in 
relation to women, due to their sex and marital and family status, particularly in the area 
of employment, as well as in cases of women with disabilities who are Roma.131 However, 
multiple  discrimination  often  occurs  in  relation  to  health  status  and  age,  disability  and 
sex.132 The Commissioner also underlines that intersectional discrimination mostly exists 
in  relation  to  women  with  disabilities,  who  are  discriminated  against  in  comparison  to 
women  without  disabilities  or  men  with  disabilities.  The  Commissioner  notes  that  these 
forms  of  discrimination  occur  most  frequently  in  education,  health  protection  and 
employment.133 

There is still no solid jurisprudence before the civil courts in order to assess whether the 
detrimental effect of multiple discrimination is recognised and whether it provides a basis 
for awarding higher compensation. 

2.1.3  Assumed and associated discrimination 

a)  Discrimination by assumption 

Article  2,  para.  1,  of  the  LPD  prohibits  discrimination  based  on  presumed  personal 
characteristics. It states that, ‘the terms “discrimination” and “discriminatory treatment” 
shall be used to designate any unwarranted discrimination or unequal treatment, that is 
to say, omission (exclusion, limitation or preferential treatment) in relation to individuals 
or  groups,  as  well  as  members  of  their  families  or  people  close  to  them,  be  it  overt  or 
covert,  on  the  grounds  of  race,  skin  colour,  ancestry,  citizenship,  national  affiliation  or 
ethnic  origin,  language,  religious  or  political  beliefs,  gender,  gender  identity,  sexual 
orientation, financial position, birth, genetic characteristics, health, disability, marital and 
family  status,  previous  convictions,  age,  appearance,  or  membership  of  political,  trade 
union  and  other  organisations  and  other  real  or  presumed  personal  characteristics’ 
(emphasis added). 

130  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2016), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2015, Belgrade, p. 146; text in Serbian available at 
www.ravnopravnost.gov.rs/rs/извештаји/извештаји, last accessed on 15 March 2017. 

131  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2016), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2015, Belgrade, p. 146. 

132  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 216. 

133  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 77. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  many  opinions,  the  Commissioner  underlines  that  discrimination  can  be  perpetrated 
on  the  basis  of  real  or  presumed  personal  characteristics,  but  in  practice  only  one  case 
dealt  with  presumed  characteristics.  However,  in  this  case,134  the  Commissioner  didn’t 
find  that  a  subordinate’s  behaviour  was  based  on  the  presumed  sexual  orientation  of  a 
police officer, the complainant in this case.135 In addition, the Strategy on the Prevention 
of and Protection from Discrimination mentions among its specific goals the elimination of 
discriminatory 
language  towards  people  of  real  or  presumed  non-heterosexual 
orientation, and promotion of tolerance in education and respect of all regardless of real 
or presumed sexual orientation and gender identity. 

b)  Discrimination by association 

In  Serbia,  the  LPD  prohibits  discrimination  based  on  association  with  people  with 
particular  characteristics.  Article  2,  para.  1,  states  that,  ‘the  terms  “discrimination”  and 
“discriminatory treatment” shall be used to designate any unwarranted discrimination or 
unequal  treatment,  that  is  to  say,  omission  (exclusion,  limitation  or  preferential 
treatment)  in  relation  to  individuals  or  groups,  as  well  as  members  of  their  families,  or 
persons  close  to  them,  be  it  overt  or  covert,  on  the  grounds  of  race,  skin  colour, 
ancestry,  citizenship,  national  affiliation  or  ethnic  origin,  language,  religious  or  political 
beliefs,  gender,  gender  identity,  sexual  orientation,  financial  position,  birth,  genetic 
characteristics,  health,  disability,  marital  and  family  status,  previous  convictions,  age, 
appearance,  or  membership  of  political,  trade  union  and  other  organisations  and  other 
real  or  presumed  personal  characteristics’  (emphasis  added).  In  other  words,  the 
definition of discrimination says that unequal treatment  occurs ‘in relation to individuals 
or groups, as well as members of their families, or persons close to them’. However, its 
application  is  limited  to  ‘family  members’  and  people  close  to  those  discriminated 
against.136  

Article 3, para. 2, of the LPDPD contains the same provision in relation to discrimination 
based  on  disability.  It  also  includes  the  possibility  for  a  lawsuit  to  be  initiated  by  the 
individual with a disability who is a victim of discrimination, their legal representative and 
an individual accompanying them at the time they experience the discrimination (in other 
words,  someone  who  is  discriminated  against  on  the  ground  of  their  association  with  a 
person with disabilities). Thus, national law  is in line with the judgment in  the Coleman 
case.137  

In  one  case,  an  applicant  claimed  that  she  was  fired  due  to  her  disability  and  the 
disability  of  her  child.138  The  court  didn’t  find  discrimination  in  this  case,  but  accepted 
that discrimination by association is possible. 

2.2  Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of direct discrimination 

In Serbia, direct discrimination is prohibited by Article 2, para. 1 of the LPD. Article 6 of 
the  LPD  states  that,  ‘Direct  discrimination  shall  occur  if  an  individual  or  a  group  of 
persons,  on  the  grounds  of  his/her  or  their  personal  characteristics,  in  the  same  or  a 
similar situation, are placed or have been placed or might be placed in a less favourable 
position  through  any  act,  action  or  omission’.  This  definition  is  almost  in  line  with  the 

134  Serbia, Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (Poverenik za zaštitu ravnopravnosti), B.K. v. the D.L., 

complaint no. 07-00-549/2014-02, opinion from 24 March 2015. 

135  In this case, there was no mention of the Coleman (ECJ, C-303/06, Coleman v. Attridge, 17 July 2008) and 
Nikolova cases (ECJ, 83714, CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, 16 
July 2015). 

136  There is no definition of ‘persons close to them’ and judicial interpretation is required in order to define who 

is covered under ‘discrimination by association’. 

137  ECJ, Coleman v Attridge Law and Steve Law, C-303/06, 17 July 2008. 
138  Appellate Court in Novi Sad, Gžl. 2478/16, judgment from 17 August 2016.  

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
definition  in  the  EU  directives.  However,  it  is  limited  to  less  favourable  treatment  and 
does not cover detriment. 

b) 

Justification of direct discrimination 

According  to  the  wording  of  Article  6,  there  is  no  justification  of  direct  discrimination. 
However,  the  LPD  allows  some  exceptions  and  exemptions  from  the  equality  clause. 
Firstly,  according  to  Article  14,  ‘measures  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  achieving  full 
equality,  protection  and  progress  of  an  individual  or  a  group  of  persons  in  an  unequal 
position  shall  not  be  considered  to  constitute  discrimination’.  In  addition,  different 
treatment,  exclusion  or  giving  priority  on  account  of  the  specific  character  of  a  job,  is 
allowed  if  an  individual’s  personal  characteristic  constitutes  a  genuine  and  decisive 
precondition for performing the job, and the  objective to be achieved is justified. These 
exceptions are also stipulated in Council Directive 2000/78/EC. 

However,  the  exception  in  relation  to  religious  ethos,  set  out  in  Article  4,  para.  3,  of 
Council  Directive  2000/78/EC  is  interpreted  much  more  widely  in  Article  18,  para.  2,  of 
the  LPD,  which  prescribes  that  the  ‘conduct  of  religious  officials,  which  is  in  accordance 
with a religious doctrine, beliefs or the objectives of churches and religious communities 
included  in  the  register  of  religious  communities,  in  accordance  with  the  law  regulating 
the  freedom  of  religion  and  the  status  of  churches  and  religious  communities’,  is  not 
considered to be discrimination.  
This  article  is  problematic  as  it  provides  a  blanket  exemption  for  religious  officials  who 
can discriminate, if this is what their religious doctrines require or allow. 

2.2.1  Situation testing 

a) 

Legal framework 

In Serbia, situation testing is permitted in national law, as it stems from the provision on 
legal standing for initiating a lawsuit. Thus, Article 46, para. 3, of the LPD stipulates that 
a  lawsuit  can  be  initiated  by  ‘a  person  who  had  deliberately  exposed  themselves  to 
discriminatory  treatment  intending  to  directly  verify  the  application  of  the  regulations 
pertaining  to  the  prohibition  of  discrimination  in  a  particular  case’.  The  LPD  further 
regulates  that  testers  shall  be  obliged  to  inform  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of 
Equality  of  what  they  intend  to  do,  unless  the  circumstances  do  not  allow  it,  and  to 
inform the Commissioner in writing of the action undertaken and the results provided by 
testing.  However,  the  Commissioner  does  not  have  the  power  to  disagree  with  the 
testing being undertaken. Even if the tester does not initiate a lawsuit, a court may hear 
them  as  a  witness.  Finally,  the  tester  may  not  be  subjected  to  a  claim  of  shared 
responsibility for the damage resulting from a discriminatory act.  

The LPD does not expressly state that situation testing will be used as evidence in court 
and the Civil Procedure Code (as lex generalis) is silent on this matter. However, it stems 
from  the  provision  stating  that  the  tester  can  be  heard  as  a  witness  in  court  and  from 
court jurisprudence. 

Many  questions  derive  from  the  unclear  regulation,  such  as  who  the  tester  is,  whether 
they  have  a  particular  relationship  with  the  person  who  has  reported  discrimination, 
whether  they  have  been  discriminated  against  previously,  whether  they  have  any  basic 
knowledge about the testing process, whether they operate alone, whether their primary 
objective  is  evidence  gathering  for  another  party  or  to  initiate  a  lawsuit,  which  includes 
notification  of  and  reporting  to  the  Commissioner,  and  the  role  of  the  Commissioner  in 
this regard.  

b) 

Practice 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  Serbia,  situation  testing  is  used  in  practice.  It  is  considered  as  proof  before  the 
Commissioner for the Protection of Equality and forms the basis for further action by the 
Commission, such as the initiation of litigation in discrimination cases, recommendations, 
warnings,  etc.  It  is  provided  by  NGOs  whose  activists  have  undergone  specific  training 
and work in cooperation with the Commissioner. In August 2012, a public call was issued 
with  the  aim  of  awarding  funding  to  NGOs  for  the  purpose  of  implementing  situational 
testing  of  discrimination.  A  total  of  23  NGOs  were  selected,  which  appointed  two 
representatives  who  participated  in  three  training  sessions  for  situational  testing  of 
discrimination.139  In  2015,  NGOs  submitted  52  complaints  to  the  Commissioner  after 
performing situation testing, claiming discrimination against people with Hepatitis C.140 

In  one  strategic  case  from  November  2015,  a  real  estate  agency  refused  to  provide  a 
service to a Roma man, claiming that it did not have an apartment for rent that matched 
his needs. An NGO dealing with Roma rights conducted situation testing and proved that 
this  was  a  case  of  discrimination.  However,  the  proceedings  were  terminated  as  this 
agency  was  removed  from  the  register  of  companies.141  In  2016,  situation  testing  was 
performed  in  64  health  institutions  in  order  to  test  whether  there  was  discrimination  in 
the provision of health services to HIV positive people.142 After the situation testing, five 
complaints  were  submitted  under  the  LPD  to  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of 
Equality  for  rejecting  to  provide  service  to  HIV  positive  persons,  claiming  to  be 
discrimination based on health status. In 4 cases discrimination was found, while in one 
case the procedure was suspended.  

2.3  Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of indirect discrimination 

In  Serbia,  indirect  discrimination  is  prohibited  in  national  law.  The  LPD  defines  indirect 
discrimination.  In  Article  7  it  states  that,  ‘Indirect  discrimination  shall  occur  if  an 
individual or a group of individuals, on account of their personal characteristics, is placed 
in a less favourable position through an act, action or omission that is apparently based 
on  the  principle  of  equality  and  prohibition  of  discrimination,  unless  it  is  justified  by  a 
lawful  objective  and  the  means  of  achieving  that  objective  are  appropriate  and 
necessary.’  However,  the  definition  of  indirect  discrimination  doesn’t  contain  the 
conditional  wording  (‘would  be  placed  in  a  less  favourable  position’)  and  can  thus  be 
interpreted  as  being  limited  to  the  actual  occurrence  of  disadvantage,  making  it 
impossible to challenge apparently neutral provisions before they incur disadvantages for 
actual  victims.  It  also  uses  the  wording  ‘an  act,  action  or  omission  that  is  apparently 
based on the principle of equality and prohibition of discrimination’ instead of the wording 
‘an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice’, when the essence  of this form  of 
discrimination is  neutrality  which,  in  practice,  leads  to  an  unequal  position  for  a  certain 
group.  

b) 

Justification test for indirect discrimination 

Indirect  discrimination  can  be  justified  if  an  apparently  neutral  act,  action  or  omission 
has  a  lawful  objective  and  the  means  of  achieving  that  objective  are  appropriate  and 
necessary. The means will be proportionate if they are closely linked to the achievement 

139  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2013), Regular Annual of the Commissioner for Protection of 

Equality for 2012, Belgrade, p. 104. 

140  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2016), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2015, Belgrade, p. 133. 

141  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2016), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2015, Belgrade, p. 175. 

142  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 119. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
of the legitimate aim, which cannot be achieved with less intrusion into someone’s rights. 
It is the same justification test as contained in the relevant EU directives.  

c) 

Comparison in relation to age discrimination 

National  law  does  not  specify  how  a  comparison  is  to  be  made  in  relation  to  age 
discrimination. 

2.3.1  Statistical evidence 

a) 

Legal framework 

In  Serbia,  there  are  national  rules  permitting  data  collection.  Data  are  provided  by  the 
National  Employment  Service  and  the  Office  of  Statistics.  The  Statistical  Office  of  the 
Republic of Serbia (Republički zavod za statistiku) is a special professional organisation in 
the  public  administration  system  which,  according  to  the  Law  on  Official  Statistics,143  is 
responsible  for  performing  technical  tasks  related  to  the  adoption  of  programmes,  the 
organisation  and  conducting  of  statistical  research,  data  collection,  statistical  analysis, 
publication  of  data,  etc.  All  data  subjects  are  required  to  submit  the  requested 
information  to  the  Statistical  Office,  which  on  the  other  hand  provides  data  protection 
and confidentiality.  

Serbia  has  not  yet  established  a  unified  and  centralised  system  for  collecting  data 
relevant  to  the  functioning  of  the  system  of  legal  protection  against  discrimination,  and 
this fact represents a huge problem in assessing and monitoring discrimination. However, 
the  Statistical  Office  of  the  Republic  of  Serbia  holds  some  data,  such  as  in  the  areas  of 
employment,  education  etc.,  which  could  also  be  relevant  for  the  assessment  of  the 
existence  of  discrimination.  It  should  be  mentioned  that  the  collection  of  some  data  is 
sensitive  (e.g.  religious  affiliation,  sexual  orientation,  etc.)  and  the  right  to  privacy  in 
providing  these  data  is  prescribed  in  the  Law  on  Personal  Data  Protection.144  This  Law 
governs the conditions for the collection and processing of personal data, protection and 
the  limitations  to  that  protection,  as  well  as  data  security.  Personal  data  protection  is 
provided  for  each  individual  irrespective  of  their  ‘nationality,  residence,  race,  age,  sex, 
language,  religious,  political  and  other  belief,  national  or  social  origin,  property,  birth, 
education, social status and other personal characteristics’ (Article 1, para. 2).  

The  LPD  does  not  contain  any  specific  rule  in  relation  to  statistics.  The  case  law  is  still 
developing  and  it  is  not  clear  how  the  courts  will  treat  statistical  evidence.  However,  it 
must  be  said  that  it  is  permitted  by  national  law  in  order  to  establish  indirect 
discrimination.  Sometimes  it  is  very  important  to  have  statistical  data  and  they  are 
widely used where possible in cases submitted to the Commissioner for the Protection of 
Equality.  

b) 

Practice 

In  Serbia,  statistical  evidence  in  order  to  establish  indirect  discrimination  is  used  in 
practice  by  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  and  mostly  in  cases  in 
relation to pregnancy.  However,  statistical evidence is not so  widely used in practice  by 
the courts, as case law is still developing and most cases fall within the category of direct 
discrimination.  The  Civil  Procedure  Code  does  not  mention  statistical  evidence  as 

143  Serbia, Law on Official Statistics (Zakon zvaničnoj statistici), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 

104/2009, 16 December 2009. 

144  Serbia, Law on Personal Data Protection (Zakon o zaštiti podataka o ličnosti), Official Gazette of the 

Republic of Serbia, no. 97/2008, 104/2009 – other law, 68/2012 – decision of the CC 107/2012, 23 October 
2008. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
evidence before the court.145 It just states in Article 7 that parties are obliged to present 
all  the  facts  on  which  they  base  their  claim  and  to  provide  evidence  which  determines 
those facts. Thus, further judicial interpretation is required in this matter. 

2.4  Harassment (Article 2(3)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of harassment 

In Serbia, harassment is prohibited in national law. In the LPD it explicitly constitutes a 
form of discrimination. However, it is not defined, as Article 12 prohibits harassment and 
humiliating treatment together, which is confusing. Thus, it states that, ‘It is forbidden to 
expose an individual or a group of persons, on the basis of their personal characteristics, 
to  harassment  and  humiliating  treatment  aiming  at  or  constituting  violation  of  their 
dignity,  especially  if  it  induces  fear  or  creates  a  hostile,  humiliating  or  offensive 
environment.’  In  other  words,  this  article  defines  humiliating  treatment  and  this  is 
confusing as humiliating treatment is a possible element of harassment. This law applies 
to  everyone  (any  individual  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Serbia,  as  well  as  any  legal  entity 
registered  or  operating  on  the  territory  of  the  Republic  of  Serbia)  and  in  all  areas  of 
public life. 

However,  Article  21,  para.  2  of  the  Labour  Law  prohibits  harassment  and  provides  a 
definition  of  these  terms.  Thus,  harassment  means  any  unwanted  conduct  aiming  at  or 
amounting to the violation of the dignity of an individual seeking employment, as well as 
of  an  employee,  and  which  causes  fear  or  creates  a  hostile,  degrading  or  offensive 
environment. The Labour Law applies to all rights, duties and responsibilities arising from 
employment,  and/or  on  the  basis  of  work  and  includes  all  employees  who  work  on  the 
territory  of  the  Republic  of  Serbia  with  a  national  or  foreign  legal  entity  and/or  an 
individual. 

In  the  LPDPD,  harassment  is  not  defined  and  is  not  recognised  as  a  special  form  of 
discrimination,  but  is  considered  to  be  a  more  severe  form  of  discrimination  if  it  is 
committed  by  public  authorities  when  people  with  disabilities  are  seeking  to  have  their 
rights recognized (Article 11, para. 3). 

b) 

Scope of liability for harassment 

Where  harassment  is  perpetrated  by  an  employee,  in  Serbia  the  employer  and/or  the 
employee  is  liable.  The  scope  of  liability  for  harassment  is  not  defined  in  the  LPD,  but 
derives from the Labour Law, and is enshrined in Article 12 which states that employees 
have the right to protection of their personal integrity and dignity.  

Employers are liable for harassment. They are also liable for harassment perpetrated by 
an  employee,  if  they  didn’t  prevent  it  or  undertake  appropriate  measures,  as  an 
employer  is  obliged  to  create  the  conditions  for  a  healthy  working  environment.  This 
obligation  also  stems  from  the  Law  on  the  Prevention  of  Bullying  at  Work146  (although 
there  is  a  clear  distinction  between  discrimination  and  bullying),  which  states  that 
employers are responsible for their own acts of bullying and are vicariously liable if other 
employees  or  management  engage  in  bullying  (Article  4).  In  addition,  employees  are 
obliged to refrain  from  bullying, otherwise they are  responsible for the violation of  their 
duties at work (Article 11). 

In the sphere of employment, Article 16 of the LPD prescribes that the employer is liable 
if  they  violate  ‘the  principle  of  equal  opportunity  for  gaining  employment  or  equal 

145  Serbia, Civil Procedure Code (Zakon o parničnom postupku), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 

72/2011, 49/2013 – decision CC, 74/2013 – decision CC and 55/2014, 3 September 2011.  

146  Serbia, Law on the Prevention of Bullying at Work (Zakon o sprečavanju zlostavljanja na radu), Official 

Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 36/2010, 26 May 2010. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
conditions for enjoying all the rights pertaining to the sphere of labour, such as the right 
to  employment,  free  choice  of  employment,  promotion,  professional  training  and 
professional  rehabilitation,  equal  pay  for  work  of  equal  value,  fair  and  satisfactory 
working  conditions,  paid  vacation,  joining  a  trade  union  and  protection  from 
unemployment’.  Those  who  enjoy  protection  are  ‘a  person  who  is  employed,  a  person 
doing temporary or occasional work, or  working on the basis of a contract  of service  or 
some  other  kind  of  contract,  a  person  doing  additional  work,  a  person  performing  a 
public function, a member of the army, a person seeking employment, a student or pupil 
doing  work  practice  and  undergoing  training  without  concluding  a  contract  of 
employment,  a  person  undergoing  professional  training  and  advanced  training  without 
concluding a contract of employment, a volunteer or any other person who works on any 
grounds whatsoever’. 

In  2016,  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  did  not  deliver  any  opinions 
where  complainants  claimed  to  have  experienced  harassment.  However,  in  one  email  a 
person  asked  the  Commissioner  ‘if  offensiveness  on  the  basis  of  physical  appearance 
constitutes  a  form  of  discrimination?’  The  Commissioner  in  its  response  underlined  that 
physical  appearance  is  also  a  personal  characteristic  protected  by  the  LPD  and  that 
Article  12  of  the  LPD  prohibits  harassment  and  degrading  treatment  which  has  the 
purpose  or  effect  of  violating  the  dignity  of  a  person  or  group  of  people  based  on  their 
personal characteristics.147  

2.5  Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) 

a) 

Prohibition of instructions to discriminate 

In Serbia, instructions to discriminate are prohibited in national law. Instructions are not 
defined. However, the LPD only prohibits the activities of organisations with the purpose 
of e.g. ‘inciting nationally, racially, religiously or otherwise motivated hatred, divisions or 
enmity’  (Article  10).  This  constitutes  a  form  of  discrimination.  On  the  other  hand,  hate 
crime is not included in the LPD. According to Article 54a of the Criminal Code, if a crime 
is  committed  out  of  hatred  because  of  someone’s  race  or  religion,  national  or  ethnic 
origin,  sex,  sexual  orientation  or  gender  identity,  the  court  shall  consider  this 
circumstance  as  an  aggravating  circumstance,  unless  it  has  been  prescribed  as  an 
element of the criminal offence.148 

In addition, Article 13, para. 1, of the LPD provides that, ‘causing and inciting inequality, 
hatred and enmity on the grounds of national, racial or religious affiliation, language, political 
opinions,  gender,  gender  identity,  sexual  orientation  or  disability’  is  considered  to  be  a 
severe form of discrimination’. 

Article 34 of the Criminal Code stipulates that anyone who, with intent, incites another to 
commit  a  criminal  offence  shall  be  punished  as  prescribed  by  law  for  such  offences. 
Article  387  prohibits  racial  and  other  discrimination,  Article  128  outlaws  the  violation  of 
equality (Article 128) and the most important Article 317 prohibits incitement of national, 
racial and religious hatred and intolerance.  

In  January  2016,  the  Law  on  Public  Assembly149  was  adopted,  regulating  public 
gatherings  in  the  Republic  of  Serbia.  Article  8  prescribes  restrictions  on  freedom  of 
assembly,  and  in  paragraph  2  expressly  provides  that  a  gathering  is  not  allowed  if  its 
objective is to incite violation of the human and minority rights and freedoms of others, 

147  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 177. 

148  Serbia, Criminal Code (Krivični zakonik), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 85/2005, 88/2005 - 
corr., 107/2005 - corr., 72/2009, 111/2009, 121/2012, 104/2013, 108/2014, 94/16, 6 October 2005. 
149  Serbia, Law on Public Assembly (Zakon o javnom okupljanju), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 

6/2016, 28 January 2016. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
or  to  incite  or  encourage  racial,  ethnic,  religious  or  other  inequality,  hatred  and 
intolerance.  

In  addition,  a  prohibition  of  incitement  to  discrimination  is  contained  in  the  Law  on 
Advertising,150  also  adopted  in  January  2016.  Article  8  stipulates  that  it  is  prohibited  to 
publicise advertising messages, directly or indirectly, which give rise to discrimination on 
any  grounds,  particularly  on  the  basis  of  ‘beliefs,  national  origin,  ethnic  origin,  religion, 
gender  or  race,  political,  sexual  or  other  opinion,  social  origin,  property  status,  culture, 
language, age, or mental or physical disability’. 

b) 

Scope of liability for instructions to discriminate 

In Serbia, the instructor and the discriminator are liable if they associate for the purpose 
of inciting hatred under the LPD (civil  responsibility) and  are subject to  criminal liability 
for  incitement  of  national,  racial  and  religious  hatred  and  intolerance  in  the  Criminal 
Code.  

2.6  Reasonable  accommodation  duties  (Article  2(2)(b)(ii)  and  Article  5 

Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Implementation of the duty to provide reasonable accommodation for people with 
disabilities in the area of employment 

In  Serbia,  the  Law  on  the  Professional  Rehabilitation  and  Employment  of  Persons  with 
Disabilities (LPREPD)151 states in Article 11, para. 4, that one of the actions in connection 
with  the  promotion  of  employment  of  people  with  disabilities  is  to  ensure  technical, 
professional and financial support for the adaptation of work tasks, the workplace or both 
work tasks and the workplace, including technical and technological aids for the purpose 
of  enhancing  opportunities  for  people  with  disabilities  to  find  and  retain  employment. 
However,  this  provision  does  not  give  an  individual  right  to  claim  reasonable 
accommodation under the LPREPD.  

Furthermore, the LPREPD prescribes that people with disabilities can be employed under 
general  and  special  conditions  (Article  22).  While  ‘general  conditions’  means  the  job 
placement without adapted work activities, workplace,  or work activities and workplace, 
‘special  conditions’  means  job  placement  with  the  adaptation  of  work  activities, 
workplace,  or  work  activities  and  workplace.  The  LPREPD  further  clarifies  that  the 
adaptation  of  work  activities  can  be  adjustments  to  the  work  process  and  work  tasks 
(Article  23,  para.  3).  Adaptation  of  the  workplace  can  refer  to  the  technical  and 
technological equipment used in a workplace, tools, space and equipment in accordance 
with  the  capabilities  and  needs  of  the  individual  with  disabilities.  It  may  also  include 
professional assistance to support the individual with disabilities in induction to the job or 
workplace,  through  counselling,  training,  assistance  services  and  support  in  the 
workplace,  work  monitoring,  development  of  personal  work  methods  and  evaluation  of 
efficiency.  

In addition, Article 22, para. 4, of the LPDPD further prescribes that discrimination occurs 
in the case of refusal to undertake a technical adaptation of the workplace that enables a 
person  with  disabilities  to  carry  out  their  work  effectively,  if  the  costs  of  adaptation  are 
not  borne  by  the  employer  or  are  not  excessive  in  relation  to  the  gain  achieved  by  the 
employer  who  is  employing  a  person  with  disabilities.  This  provision  gives  the  right  to 
reasonable  accommodation  to  workers,  but  it  is  not  clear  if  this  right  extends  to  job 

150  Serbia, Law on Advertising (Zakon o oglasavanju), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 6/2016, 28 

January 2016. 

151  Serbia, Law on the Professional Rehabilitation and Employment of Persons with 
Disabilities (Zakon o profesionalnoj rehabilitaciji i zapošljavanju osoba sa invaliditetom), Official Gazette of the 

Republic of Serbia, no. 36/2009, 17 April 2006. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
applicants,  as  well.  However,  the  obligation  provided  in  the  LPDPD  is  not  sufficient,  as 
noted  by  the  Committee  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities,  which  is  the  reason 
why  the  Committee  recommended  that  Serbia  review  its  legislation  to  adequately 
guarantee the provision of reasonable accommodation in the workplace.152 

Nevertheless, the duty to provide reasonable accommodation is not included in the LPD. 
Therefore,  the  Committee  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  is  concerned  that 
neither the concept of reasonable accommodation nor recognition that the denial of such 
accommodation  is  a  form  of  discrimination  are  explicitly  included  in  anti-discrimination 
laws.153  

b) 

Practice 

The  lack  of  this  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  in  the  LPD  leads  to  a  high 
unemployment  rate  among  people  with  disabilities  and  has  reduced  their  possibilities  of 
inclusion  in  the  labour  market.  Although  it  is  positive  that  the  LPDPD  provides  these 
duties, relevant case law is still lacking on this issue, as the reasonable accommodation 
duty  is  not  recognised  in  the  LPD.  Consequently,  in  its  progress  report  for  Serbia  for 
2015,  the  European  Commission  acknowledges  that  Serbian  non-discrimination 
legislation is generally in line with European standards, but further alignment is needed, 
in  particular  in  regard  to  the  obligation  to  ensure  reasonable  accommodation  for 
employees  with  disabilities.154  The  European  Commission  repeated  its  2015  observation 
about  Serbia’s  non-discrimination  legislation  in  its  report  for  2016,  but  added  that 
amendments to bring it fully in line with the acquis remain to be adopted.155 In addition, 
the  Committee  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  expressed  its  concern  that 
neither the concept of reasonable accommodation nor recognition that the denial of such 
accommodation  is  a  form  of  discrimination  are  explicitly  included  in  anti-discrimination 
laws.156 

c) 

Definition of disability and non-discrimination protection 

The LPDPD prohibits discrimination based on disability and defines people with disabilities 
as  people  with  a  congenital  or  acquired  physical,  sensory,  intellectual  or  emotional 
(psycho-social)  impairment  who  are,  due  to  social  or  other  barriers,  unable  or  have 
limited opportunities to engage in social activities at the same level as others, regardless 
of whether they are capable of carrying out such activities with the use of technical aids 
or support services (Article 3, para. 1). 

The LPREPD also provides a definition of people with disabilities as people who live with 
the permanent consequences of a physical, sensory, mental or psychiatric impairment or 
disease  that  cannot  be  eliminated  by  any  treatment  or  medical  rehabilitation  and  are 
faced  with  social  and  other  limitations  and  barriers  affecting  their  working  capacity  and 
possibility  of  finding  or  retaining  employment,  and  who  have  no  possibility  or  have 
reduced  possibilities  of  being involved  in  the  labour  market  or  applying  for  employment 
on equal terms with other persons (Article 3, para. 1). Thus, this definition is based on a 

152  Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Concluding observations on the initial report of Serbia, 

CRPD/C/SRB/CO/1, 23 May 2016, para. 53.  

153  Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Concluding observations on the initial report of Serbia, 

CRPD/C/SRB/CO/1, 23 May 2016, para. 9. 

154  European Commission, Serbia 2015 Report, Brussels, 10 November 2015, p.56; text available at 

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2015/20151110_report_serbia.pdf, last accessed on 
15 March 2017. 

155  European Commission, Serbia 2016 Report, Brussels, 9 November 2016, p.62; text available at 

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-
enlargement/sites/near/files/pdf/key_documents/2016/20161109_report_serbia.pdf, last accessed on 15 
March 2017. 

156  Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Concluding observations on the initial report of Serbia, 

CRPD/C/SRB/CO/1, 23 May 2016, p. 2.  

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
social  model  of  disability  and  determines  the  concept  of  ‘long-term  impairments’  as 
impairments that cannot be eliminated by any treatment or medical rehabilitation, which 
creates permanent consequences. This provision is not  ad verbum taken  from Article 1, 
para. 2, of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as in the LPDPD 
but the meaning is the same. 

d)  Duties to provide reasonable accommodation in areas other than employment for 

people with disabilities 

In  Serbia,  there  is  a  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  for  people  with 
disabilities in the field of the provision of  services and the use of facilities and services. 
Thus, the LPDPD describes as discrimination a ‘refusal to carry out a technical adaptation 
of the facility, necessary to provide a service to users with disabilities’ (Article 13, para. 
5, sec. 3). The Law does not mention any limits to the application of this duty, as well as 
what would be considered a ‘disproportionate burden’. In its concluding observations, the 
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities also reccommended that Serbia take 
immediate  steps  to  ensure  that  all  people  with  disabilities  have  access  to  inclusive  and 
quality primary, secondary and tertiary education and that reasonable accommodation, in 
accordance  with  established  individual  education  plans,  is  provided  in  mainstream 
education.157 

e) 

Failure to meet the duty of reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities 

In Serbia, failure to meet the duty of reasonable accommodation in both the field of the 
provision  of  services  and  the  use  of  facilities,  as  well  as  in  employment,  counts  as 
discrimination.  The  LPDPD  stipulates  in Article  22,  para.  4,  that  discrimination  occurs  in 
the  case  of  a  refusal  to  carry  out  a  technical  adaptation  of  the  workplace  that  enables 
efficient work by people with disabilities. However, the employer can be exempted from 
this  obligation  if  the  costs  of  the  adaptation  are  disproportionate  to  the  profit  of  the 
employer employing a person with disability. In addition, Article 2, para. 1, of the LPD, as 
well as Article 3, para. 2, of the LPDPD, clearly state that discrimination occurs as an act 
or  omission  and  this  can  be  interpreted  as  a 
failure  to  provide  reasonable 
accommodation.  

It  is  important  to  mention  that  a  failure  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  can  be 
either direct or indirect discrimination, as both definitions contain failure to act as an act 
of  discrimination.  Therefore,  potential  sanctions  are  the  same  as  in  a  case  of  direct  or 
indirect  discrimination.  Furthermore,  the  burden  of  proof  shifts  when  claiming 
discrimination due to failure to provide reasonable accommodation.  

f) 

Duties to provide reasonable accommodation in respect of other grounds 

In  Serbia,  there  is  no  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  in  respect  of  other 
grounds in the public and/or the private sector. 

g) 

Accessibility of services, buildings and infrastructure  

In  Serbia,  national  law  requires  services  available  to  the  public,  buildings  and 
infrastructure  to  be  designed  and  built  in  a  way  which  ensures  accessibility  for  people 
with disabilities. 

The  LPD  does  not  define  accessibility,  but  it  stipulates  in  Article  17,  para.  2  that, 
‘Everyone  shall  have  the  right  to  equal  access  to  premises  in  public  use  (such  as 
buildings  where  the  head  offices  of  public  administration  bodies  are  located,  premises 

157  Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Concluding observations on the initial report of Serbia, 

CRPD/C/SRB/CO/1, 23 May 2016, p. 8. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
used in the spheres of education, healthcare, social welfare, culture, sports and tourism, 
and  premises  used  for  the  purpose  of  environmental  protection  and  protection  against 
natural  disasters),  as  well  as  public  spaces  (such  as  parks,  squares,  streets,  pedestrian 
crossings  and  public  transport  roads),  in  accordance  with  the  law’.  This  means  that  it 
covers  accessibility  in  all  areas  of  public  life  (public  institutions,  education,  healthcare, 
social  welfare,  culture,  sports,  tourism  and  premises  used  for  the  purpose  of 
environmental protection and protection against natural disasters). Public authorities, as 
well as private institutions and individuals who open facilities to the  public, have a duty 
to ensure accessibility. 

Article 13 of the LPDPD prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in terms of the 
availability of services and access to facilities for public use and to public areas.  

Regarding  physical  access  to  buildings,  Article  5  of  the  Law  on  Planning  and 
Construction158  specifies  that  facilities  for  public  and  commercial  use  must  fulfil  the 
condition  that  people  with  disabilities,  children  and  the  elderly  are  provided  with 
appropriate access to and mobility within them. In addition, residential buildings with ten 
and  more  units  must  be  designed  to  meet  accessibility  requirements.  However,  in  one 
document submitted to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the 
Protector  of  Citizens  (Ombudsman)  stated  that  the  inconsistent  enforcement  of  the 
above-mentioned  regulations  providing  for  accessibility  made  the  exercise  of  the 
fundamental rights of persons with disabilities difficult. The Protector emphasised the fact 
that  during  2014  he  collected  data  on  the  accessibility  of  public  buildings  from  local 
authorities and found that most towns and municipalities are undertaking specific actions 
and measures to provide accessibility, but most buildings still remain inaccessible.159  

In 2016, the Law on Housing and Building Maintenance160 was adopted, stating in Article 
90 that the term ‘adequate flat’ means an accessible flat if the beneficiaries of a housing 
support  programme  are  people  with  disabilities.  This  Law  also  prescribes  in  Article  79, 
para.  6,  that  in  the  event  of  forced  eviction,  there  is  a  duty  to  provide  adequate 
alternative housing, which must be accessible.  

The  Law  on  Traffic  Safety  prescribes  in  Article  24  that  a  blind  person  who  participates 
independently as a pedestrian in areas where traffic is present should move around with 
the aid of a white cane and/or a trained guide dog.161 This provision is further elaborated 
in the Law on the Use of Guide Dogs,162 which was adopted in March 2015 with the aim 
of enabling people with disabilities to move around using guide dogs on public transport, 
in all public buildings and all public places (including covered public places), as well as in 
workplaces.  This  Law  is  primarily  aimed  at  the  12 000  citizens  who  have  severe  visual 
impairments,  9 000  citizens  who  are  completely  blind  and  3 000  citizens  who  have 
impaired  vision163  and  should  help  them  to  move  around  more  freely.164  However,  the 
Law is not limited only to Serbian nationals.  

158  Serbia, Law on Planning and Construction (Zakon o planiranju i izgradnji), Official Gazette of the Republic of 
Serbia, no. 72/2009, 81/2009 - corr., 64/2010 – decision CC, 24/2011, 121/2012, 42/2013 – decision CC, 
50/2013 - decision CC, 98/2013 - decision CC, 132/2014, 145/2014, 3 September 2009. 

159  Protector of Citizens, Selected list of issues on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of 

Persons with Disabilities in the Republic of Serbia, no 22/12/15, Belgrade, 31 July 2015, p. 4; available at: 
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2fCRPD%2fIFL%2f
SRB%2f21317&Lang=en, last accessed on 15 March 2017. 

160  Serbia, Law on Housing and Building Maintenance (Zakon o stanovanju i odrzavanju zgrada), Official 

Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 104/2016, 23 December 2016. 

161  Serbia, Law on Traffic Safety (Zakon o bezbednosti saobraćaja), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, 

no. 41/2009, 53/2010, 10172011, 10 June 2009. 

162  Serbia, Law on the Use of Guide Dogs, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 29/2015, 31 March 

2015. 

163  Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction Unit, Law on Movement Using Guide-Dogs Adopted, 25 March 2015, 
available at http://socijalnoukljucivanje.gov.rs/en/law-on-movement-using-guide-dogs-adopted/, last 
accessed on 15 March 2017. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
h) 

Accessibility of public documents 

Article 5 of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance165 stipulates that 
everyone  has  the  right  to  be  informed  if  a  public  authority  holds  specific  information  of 
public  importance  and  has  the  right  to  be  allowed  to  see  a  document  containing 
information  of  public  importance,  the  right  to  a  copy  of  that  document  and  the  right  to 
receive a copy of the document upon request, by mail, fax, electronic mail or in another 
way.  This  right  must  be  exercised  under  equal  conditions,  notwithstanding  citizenship, 
temporary  or  permanent  residence,  location  of  headquarters  (in  the  case  of  a  legal 
entity),  or  personal  characteristics,  such  as  race,  faith,  nationality,  ethnicity,  gender  or 
any other personal characteristic (Article 6).  

In  addition,  the  Law  on  Public  Information  and  Media166  and  the  Law  on  Electronic 
Communications167  introduce  positive  innovations  with  explicit  reference  to  people  with 
disabilities.  Thus,  the  Law  on  Public  Information  and  Media  sets  out  the  obligation  to 
provide access to information and communication. Article 12 states that authorities must 
take measures to ensure the smooth receipt of information intended for the public, in an 
appropriate  form  and  by  use  of  appropriate  technologies,  and  provide  part  funding  or 
other  conditions  for  the  operation  of  media  outlets  which  publish  information  in  sign 
language, Braille or in another way to facilitate the exercise of the rights of people with 
disabilities  pertaining  to  the  public  information  sector.  The  Law  on  Electronic 
Communications  contains  several  articles  which  have  the  purpose  of  securing  the 
availability  of  electronic  communication  for  people  with  disabilities.  However,  access  to 
information  and  communications  is  still  very  difficult  for  people  with  sensory 
impairments.168  

Despite  the  fact  that  there  are  around  30  000  deaf  and  hearing  impaired  people  in 
Serbia,  there  are  only  30  sign  language  interpreters.  Finally,  after  several  years  of 
preparation,  the  Law  on  the  Use  of  Sign  Language169  was  adopted.  This  Law  regulates 
the use  of sign language in political, educational, employment and other areas  of social 
life. The purpose of this Law is to enable the full inclusion of deaf people in society and 
the  right  to  use  sign  language  in  various  proceedings  in  relation  to  public  services,  in 
education,  employment  and  all  other  areas.  With  this  Law,  sign  language  becomes  an 
official language for the hearing impaired, providing a legal basis for greater accessibility 
to  information  and  communication.170  In  addition,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  appointed  17 
permanent  court  sign  language  interpreters,  in  addition  to  the  already  existing  three 
interpreters,  with  the  aim  of  improving  the  opportunities  for  people  with  disabilities  to 

164  Coalition of NGOs, Alternative report on the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 

Disabilities in the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade, July 2015, p. 6. 

165  Serbia, Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance (Zakon o slobodnom pristupu informacijama 

od javnog značaja), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 120/2004, 54/2007, 104/2009, 36/2010, 
31 December 2004.  

166  Serbia, Law on Public Information and Media (Zakon o javnom informisanju i medijima), Official Gazette of 

the Republic of Serbia, no. 83/2014, 58/2015, 12/2016, 13 August 2014. 

167  Serbia, Law on Electronic Communications (Zakon o elektronskim komunikacijama), Official Gazette of the 

Republic of Serbia, no. 44/2010, 60/2013 – CC decision, 62/2014, 30 June 2010. 

168  Coalition of NGOs, Alternative report on the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 

Disabilities in the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade, July 2015, p. 6; available at: 
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/TreatyBodyExternal/Countries.aspx?CountryCode=SRB&Lang=EN, last 
accessed on 27 March 2016. 

169  Serbia, Law on the Use of Sign Language, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 38/2015, 7 May 

2015. 

170  The Law on the Prevention of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities was amended in February 

2016 in order to guarantee the right of blind or visually impaired persons to use personal facsimile stamps 
to sign legal documents. The Amendments to the Law on the Prevention of Discrimination against Persons 
with Disabilities Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 13/2016, 19 February 2016. 

47 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
exercise their rights,171 in a range of circumstances, such as court proceedings, different 
services provided by municipalities, visa applications, etc. 

171  This information was published on a website of the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality on 14 March 
2017, http://ravnopravnost.gov.rs/saopstenje-povodom-postavljanja-sudskih-tumaca/, last accessed on 15 
March 2017. 

48 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
3 

PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE  

3.1  Personal scope 

3.1.1  EU  and  non-EU  nationals  (Recital  13  and  Article  3(2)  Directive  2000/43 

and Recital 12 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/78) 

In  Serbia,  there  is  a  residence  requirement  for  protection  under  the  relevant  national 
laws  transposing  the  directives.  Thus,  the  LPD  prescribes  that  the  law  applies  to  ‘an 
individual  residing  on  the  territory  of  the  Republic  of  Serbia  or  a  territory  under  its 
jurisdiction, regardless of whether that individual is a national of the Republic of Serbia, 
some  other  state  or  a  stateless  person’.  It  can  be  derived  from  the  wording  that  this 
requirement means legal residence and not only presence on the state territory, as there 
is a difference between the terms ‘reside’ (boraviti) and ‘is present’ (nalazi se na). Thus, 
the  LPD  requires  that  a  person  is  resident  in  the  Republic  of  Serbia,  regardless  of  their 
citizenship.  In  the  case  of  a  cross-border  worker  (for  example,  someone  who  resides  in 
Croatia and works in Serbia), it can be argued that this person is not covered by the LPD. 
But  Article  21  of  the  Constitution  also  applies,  which  means  that  the  LPD  must  be 
interpreted in accordance with the constitutional provisions and provide protection in this 
case as well. This dilemma is not resolved, even with Article 3, para. 2, which states that 
a foreigner, in accordance with international treaties, has all the rights guaranteed by the 
Constitution and by law, with the  exception of  those rights that, in  accordance with the 
Constitution and the law, are only enjoyed by the citizens of the Republic of Serbia. 

3.1.2  Natural and legal persons (Recital 16 Directive 2000/43) 

a) 

Protection against discrimination 

In Serbia, the personal scope of anti-discrimination law covers natural and legal persons 
for the purpose of protection against discrimination. Article 3, para. 1, of the LPD states 
that everyone has the right to adequate protection from all forms of discrimination.  

b) 

Liability for discrimination 

In Serbia, the personal scope of anti-discrimination law covers natural and legal persons 
for  the  purpose  of  liability  for  discrimination.  Thus,  Article  4,  para.  2,  provides  that 
everyone  shall  be  obliged  to  respect  the  principle  of  equality  and  the  prohibition  of 
discrimination. 

Article  2,  para.  3,  of  the  LPD  defines  the  terms  ‘person’  and  ‘everyone’,  which  shall  be 
used  to  designate  individuals  residing  on  the  territory  of  the  Republic  of  Serbia  or  a 
territory  under  its  jurisdiction,  regardless  of  whether  those  individuals  are  nationals  of 
the  Republic  of  Serbia,  another  state  or  stateless  persons,  as  well  as  any  legal  entity 
registered or operating on the territory of the Republic of Serbia.  

3.1.3  Private and public sector including public bodies (Article 3(1)) 

a) 

Protection against discrimination 

In  Serbia,  the  personal  scope  of  national  law  covers  the  private  and  public  sectors, 
including  public  bodies,  for  the  purpose  of  protection  against  discrimination.  Article  3, 
para. 1 of the LPD states that everyone shall have the right to adequate protection from 
all  forms  of  discrimination  by  the  authorised  courts  and  other  public  administration 
bodies  of  the  Republic  of  Serbia.  In  addition,  Article  2,  para.  1  says  that  discrimination 
can  occur  against  persons  and  groups,  as  well  as  members  of  their  families  or  persons 
close  to  them.  Article  2,  para.  2  explains  that  the  terms  ‘person’  and  ‘everyone’  means 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
individuals,  as  well  as  ‘any  legal  entity  registered  or  operating  on  the  territory  of  the 
Republic of Serbia’. 

b) 

Liability for discrimination 

In  Serbia,  the  personal  scope  of  anti-discrimination  law  covers  the  private  and  public 
sectors, including public bodies, for the purpose of liability for discrimination. Thus Article 
4,  para.  2,  stipulates  that  everyone  shall  be  obliged  to  respect  the  principle  of  equality 
and  the  prohibition  of  discrimination.  Article  2,  para.  4,  defines  what  is  meant  by  the 
term  ‘public  administration  body’  -  a  state  body,  autonomous  province  body,  local 
government  body,  public  company,  institution,  public  agency  or  other  organisation 
entrusted  with  public  authority,  as  well  as  a  legal  entity  established  or  financed  in  its 
entirety, or predominantly, by the Republic, an autonomous province or local authority. 

3.2  Material scope 

3.2.1  Employment, self-employment and occupation  

legislation  applies  to  all  sectors  of  private172  and  public 
In  Serbia,  national 
employment,173  self-employment  and  occupation,  including  contract  work,174  military 
service and holding statutory office, for the five grounds.175  

Article  2  of  the  Labour  Law  specifies  that  it  applies  to  ‘all  employees  who  work  in  the 
territory of the Republic of Serbia with a national or foreign legal entity and/or a natural 
person,  as  well  as  to  employees  assigned  to  work  abroad  by  an  employer,  unless 
otherwise  specified  by  the  law’.  It  also  applies  to  employees  of  government  agencies, 
agencies  in  the  autonomous  provinces  and  local  authorities  and  public  services,  as  well 
as to employed foreign nationals and stateless persons, unless otherwise specified by the 
law.  Article  18  prohibits  discrimination  based  on,  among  other  grounds,  sex,  race,  skin 
colour, age, pregnancy, disability, ethnic origin, religion and sexual orientation. 

Article  16,  para.  2,  of  the  LPD  prohibits  discrimination  in  the  sphere  of  labour  and  the 
right to protection from discrimination is enjoyed by ‘a person who is employed, a person 
doing temporary or occasional work, or  working on the basis of a contract  of service  or 
some  other  kind  of  contract,  a  person  doing  additional  work,  a  person  performing  a 
public function, a member of the army, a person seeking employment, a student or pupil 
doing  work  practice  and  undergoing  training  without  concluding  a  contract  of 
employment,  a  person  undergoing  professional  training  and  advanced  training  without 
concluding a contract of employment, a volunteer or any other person who works on any 
grounds whatsoever’. The LPD covers all five grounds  of discrimination prohibited in the 
Racial Equality Directive and Employment Equality Directive. 

The LPREPD sets out the prohibition of discrimination against people with disabilities and 
applies  to  the  employer  who  is  a  ‘domestic  or  foreign  legal  entity  or  individual  who 
employs one or several persons, i.e. the Republic of Serbia for employees of state bodies, 
autonomous  province  for  employees  of  provincial  bodies  and  local  authority  for 
employees of local authorities’ (Article 3, para. 3). 

172  See, e.g. Serbia, Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (Poverenik za zaštitu ravnopravnosti), A.C. v. 

P.I.d.o.o., complaint no. 07-00-396/2016-02, opinion from 15 October 2016. 

173  See, e.g. Serbia, Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (Poverenik za zaštitu ravnopravnosti), S.V. 

and A.M.M. v. Basic Court in Kragujevac, complaint no. 07-00-9/2016-02, opinion from 18 February 2016. 
174  See, e.g. Serbia, Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (Poverenik za zaštitu ravnopravnosti), R.C.M. 

v. public company City Maintenance, complaint no. 07-00-207/2016-02, opinion from 25 July 2016. 

175  It covers sex, birth, language, race, skin colour, age, pregnancy, health condition, and/or disability, ethnic 

origin, religion, marital status, family obligations, sexual orientation, political or other belief, social 
background, financial status, membership of political organisations or trade unions, or any other personal 
characteristic. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.2  Conditions  for  access  to  employment,  to  self-employment  or  to 
occupation,  including  selection  criteria,  recruitment  conditions  and 
promotion,  whatever  the  branch  of  activity  and  at  all  levels  of  the 
professional hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a))  

In  Serbia,  national  legislation  prohibits  discrimination  in  the  following  areas:  conditions 
for  access  to  employment,  self-employment  or  occupation,  including  selection  criteria, 
recruitment conditions and promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of 
the professional hierarchy  for the five grounds  in both the private and public sectors  as 
described in the directives.  

Article  1,  para.  1  of  the  Labour  Law  governs  ‘Rights,  duties  and  responsibilities  arising 
from employment, and/or in the area of work’ which shall be regulated by this Law and 
by  specific  laws,  in  conformity  with  the  ratified  international  conventions.  Article  20 
prohibits discrimination  with regard to access  to employment,  selection and recruitment 
(para.  1),  and  job  promotion  (para.  4).  Thus,  it  does  not  cover  self-employment  and 
occupation.  The  Labour  Law  covers  all  five  grounds  covered  by  the  relevant  EU 
directives. 

The  Law  on  Employment  and  Unemployment  Insurance  governs  employment-related 
activities and institutions competent for employment affairs, the rights and obligations of 
unemployed people and employers, active  employment policy, unemployment insurance 
and  other  matters  relevant  to  employment,  raising  employment  levels  and  preventing 
long-term unemployment in the Republic of Serbia (Article 1). Unlike the Labour Law, the 
Law  on  Employment  and  Unemployment  Insurance  does  cover  self-employment.  Thus, 
Article  43,  para.  4  on  active  employment  measures  includes  support  for  self-
employment, while Article 51 defines that support. Article 52 prescribes further education 
and  training  in  order  to  promote  self-employment.  Article  5,  para.  1  prohibits 
discrimination  as  it  is  defined  in  the  LPD  and  guarantees  freedom  of  choice  of 
employment  and  occupation.  Employment  activities  comprise  dissemination  of 
information  on  employment  opportunities  and  conditions;  job  matching  within  the 
country  and 
internationally;  vocational  guidance  and  career  counselling;  and 
implementation of active employment policy measures (Article 6).  

Article 16, para. 1 of the LPD prohibits discrimination in the sphere of labour. It prohibits 
any  violation  of  the  principle  of  equal  opportunities  in  obtaining  employment  or  equal 
conditions for enjoying all the rights pertaining to the sphere of labour, such as the right 
to  employment,  free  choice  of  occupation,  promotion,  professional  training  and 
professional  rehabilitation,  equal  pay  for  work  of  equal  value,  fair  and  satisfactory 
working  conditions,  paid  vacation,  joining  a  trade  union  and  protection  from 
unemployment. Thus, this Law does not cover self-employment. 

Article  21,  para.  1  of  the  LPDPD  establishes  the  prohibition  of  discrimination  on  the 
ground  of  disability  in  relation  to  employment  and  seeking  employment.  This  law  does 
not cover self-employment and occupation. 

3.2.3  Employment  and  working  conditions,  including  pay  and  dismissals 

(Article 3(1)(c)) 

In  Serbia,  national  legislation  prohibits  discrimination  in  relation  to  working  conditions 
including  pay  and  dismissals,  for  all  five  grounds  and  for  both  private  and  public 
employment.176 

176  This covers sex, birth, language, race, skin colour, age, pregnancy, health condition and/or disability, ethnic 

origin, religion, marital status, family obligations, sexual orientation, political or other belief, social 
background, financial status, membership of political organisations or trade unions, or any other personal 
characteristic. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Article  20,  para.  2,  of  the  Labour  Law  prescribes  the  prohibition  of  discrimination 
regarding  employment  conditions,  working  conditions  and  all  the  rights  deriving  from 
employment relations and cancellation of an employment contract (in para. 5).  

Article  16,  para.  1,  of  the  LPD  covers,  among  other  things,  equal  conditions  for  the 
enjoyment of all the rights pertaining to the sphere of labour, equal pay for work of equal 
value, fair and satisfactory working conditions, and protection from unemployment. 

3.2.3.1  Occupational pensions constituting part of pay 

In respect of occupational pensions, anti-discrimination law does not cover prohibition of 
discrimination.  However,  according  to  Article  119,  para.  5,  of  the  Labour  Law,  an 
employer is entitled to pay a premium for voluntary supplementary pension insurance to 
employees, and this is considered to constitute ‘pay’, which is subject to the Labour Law 
and the LPD.  

3.2.4  Access  to  all  types  and  to  all  levels  of  vocational  guidance,  vocational 
training,  advanced  vocational  training  and  retraining,  including  practical 
work experience (Article 3(1)(b)) 

In  Serbia,  national  legislation  applies  to  vocational  training  outside  the  employment 
relationship,  such  as  that  provided  by  technical  schools  or  universities  or  adult  lifelong 
learning courses.  

Article  16,  para.  1  of  the  LPD  covers  the  right  to  vocational  training  and  professional 
rehabilitation  within  and  outside  the  employment  relationship.  This  right  is  broadly 
enjoyed by ‘a person who is employed, a person doing temporary or occasional work, or 
working  on  the  basis  of  a  contract  of  service  or  some  other  kind  of  contract,  a  person 
doing  additional  work,  a  person  performing  a  public  function,  a  member  of  the  army,  a 
person  seeking  employment,  a  student  or  pupil  doing  work  practice  and  undergoing 
training without concluding a contract of employment, a person undergoing professional 
training and advanced training without concluding a contract of employment, a volunteer 
or any other person who works on any grounds whatsoever’ (Article 16, para. 2).  

In  other  words,  this  right  is  also  guaranteed  for  people  who  perform  some  kind  of 
practical work experience, although there is no employment relationship. Article 19, para. 
1,  prescribes  that  everyone  has  the  right  to  professional  training  in  education  in  equal 
circumstances, in accordance with the law. It includes higher education and adult lifelong 
learning courses. 

The  Labour  Law  prohibits  discrimination  in  Article  20,  para.  3,  in  relation  to  education, 
vocational training and specialisation. In addition, the whole  of Section IV regulates the 
area of education, vocational training and specialisation. 

3.2.5  Membership  of,  and  involvement  in,  an  organisation  of  workers  or 
employers,  or  any  organisation  whose  members  carry  on  a  particular 
profession,  including  the  benefits  provided  for  by  such  organisations 
(Article 3(1)(d)) 

In Serbia, national legislation expressly prohibits discrimination in relation to membership 
of  and  involvement  in  workers’  or  employers’  organisations  as  formulated  in  the 
directives for the ground of disability, and does not recognise it for other grounds.  

Article 12, para. 1, of the LPDPD prohibits discrimination in associations on the ground of 
disability.  The  Law  further  clarifies  that  this  discrimination  includes  refusal  to  grant 
membership,  the  establishment  of  special  conditions  of  membership,  denial  of  the  right 
to  vote  and  to  be  elected  to  the  management  bodies  of  the  association,  as  well  as  the 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
establishment  of  special  conditions  for  the  selection  of  people  with  disabilities  to  the 
management  bodies  of  the  association.  However,  the  establishment  or  operation  of 
associations  of  people  with  disabilities  and  other  forms  of  self-organisation  are  not 
considered to be discrimination.  

3.2.6  Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 3(1)(e) 

Directive 2000/43) 

In  Serbia,  national  legislation  prohibits  discrimination  in  relation  to  social  protection, 
including social security and healthcare as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive. 

The Constitution of Serbia guarantees to everyone the right to protection of their mental 
and physical health (Article 68) and the right to social protection for citizens and families 
who  require  welfare  for  the  purpose  of  overcoming  social  subsistence  difficulties  and 
creating the conditions to provide for themselves and their families (Article 69).  

Article 25 of the Law on Social Protection177 prohibits discrimination in the area of social 
protection  which  is  based  on  ‘race,  sex,  age,  national  origin,  social  background,  sexual 
orientation,  religion,  political,  trade  union  or  other  opinion,  property  status,  culture, 
language, disability, the nature of social exclusion or other personal characteristics’. 

The  Law  on  Healthcare178  guarantees the right to healthcare  for  citizens of the Republic 
of Serbia, as well as to any other person who has permanent or temporary residence in 
the  territory  of  the  Republic  of  Serbia  (Article  3).  According  to  Article  25,  every  citizen 
has  the  right  to  healthcare,  exercised  with  respect  to  the  highest  possible  standards  of 
human rights, and respecting their moral, cultural, religious and philosophical beliefs. The 
principles  in  the  areas  of  healthcare  include,  among  others:  1)  the  principle  of 
accessibility  (physically,  geographically  and  economically  available),  especially  at  the 
primary  level  (Article  19);  2)  the  prohibition  of  discrimination  in  the  provision  of 
healthcare based  on  race, sex, age, national origin, social background, religion, political 
or  other  opinion,  property  status,  culture,  language,  type  of  illness,  mental  or  physical 
disability  (Article  20);  and  3)  the  principle  of  comprehensiveness,  which  involves  the 
inclusion of all citizens of the Republic of Serbia in the healthcare system. 

The LPD applies to all areas of life, but does not mention social protection in Section III, 
where  it  covers  special  cases  of  discrimination.  Article  27  forbids  discrimination  against 
an  individual  or  a  group  of  people  on  the  grounds  of  their  health,  and  discrimination 
against  their  family  members.  The  Law  further  explains  that  it  will  be  considered  that 
discrimination  occurs  ‘especially  if  an  individual  or  a  group  of  persons  is  unwarrantedly 
denied healthcare services, has special conditions imposed for the provision of healthcare 
services,  is  denied  diagnosis  and  has  information  withheld  pertaining  to  their  current 
health  condition  or  measures  already  undertaken  or  intended  for  treatment  or 
rehabilitation, and, in the case of harassment, receives insults and disparagement in the 
course of staying at a healthcare institution’.  

The LPDPD recognises a more severe type of discrimination in the case of discrimination 
against  people  with  disabilities  in  the  provision  of  health  services  (Article  17).  The  Law 
defines  that  discrimination  occurs  where  the  following  actions  take  place  due  to  an 
individual’s disability:  

- 

refusal to provide health services for people with disabilities; 

177  Serbia, Law on Social Protection (Zakon o socijalnoj zaštiti), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 

24/2011, 4 April 2011. 

178  Serbia, Law on Healthcare (Zakon o zdravstvenoj zaštiti), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 
107/2005, 72/2009 – other laws, 88/2010, 99/2010, 57/2011, 119/2012, 45/2013, 93/2014, 96/2015, 
106/2015, 2 December 2005. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
- 

- 

- 

establishing  special  conditions  for  the  provision  of  health  services  to  people  with 
disabilities if the conditions are not justified by medical reasons;  
rejection of a diagnosis and denial of adequate information on the current state of 
health  measures  taken,  or  intended  treatment  and  rehabilitation  of  people  with 
disabilities; and  
any harassment, insulting or belittling of people with disabilities during their stay in 
a health institution. 

3.2.6.1  Article 3.3 exception (Directive 2000/78) 

Serbian  law  does  not  rely  on  the  exception  in  Article  3.3  of  the  Employment  Equality 
Directive in relation to religion or belief, age, disability and sexual orientation. 

3.2.7  Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) 

In  Serbia,  national  legislation  does  not  prohibit  discrimination  in  relation  to  social 
advantages  as  formulated  in  the  Racial  Equality  Directive.  The  concept  of  social 
advantages  is  not  recognised  as  such,  but  some  benefits  do  exist  in  Serbia  which  are 
granted  solely  on  the  basis  of  employment  status.  Article  119  of  the  Labour  Law 
recognises  as  other  income  a  refund  of  funeral  expenses  in  the  event  of  the  death  of  a 
member of the immediate family, and to members of the immediate family in the event 
of the death of the employee. An  employer shall be bound to pay the funeral expenses, 
in conformity with the general act. A general collective agreement and special collective 
agreements further specify what social advantages are  granted to employees and under 
what conditions. 

In Serbia, the lack of a definition of social advantages does not cause problems. 

3.2.8  Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) 

In  Serbia,  national  legislation  prohibits  discrimination  in  relation  to  education  as 
formulated in the Racial Equality Directive. 

Article  19,  para.  1,  of  the  LPD  guarantees  to  everyone  the  right  to  different  levels  of 
education (preschool, primary, secondary and higher education and professional training) 
under equal conditions. The protected grounds are those enshrined in Article 2, para. 1: 
race,  skin  colour,  ancestry,  citizenship,  national  affiliation  or  ethnic  origin,  language, 
religious or political beliefs, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, financial position, 
birth,  genetic  characteristics,  health,  disability,  marital  and  family  status,  previous 
convictions,  age,  appearance,  membership  of  political,  trade  union  and  other 
organisations and other real or presumed personal characteristics.  

This means that migrants also have the right to education and they also enjoy protection 
from discrimination under the LPD. The Law on Asylum sets out provisions that relate to 
asylum  seekers  and  those  granted  international  protection.  Thus  Article  41  prescribes 
that asylum seeker and refugees have the right to free primary and secondary education, 
while  Article  38,  para.  4,  establishes  that  right  for  those  granted  temporary  protection. 
However,  in  practice,  the  implementation  of  these  provisions  has  proven  to  be  a  major 
challenge.179 Eight years after the adoption of the Law on Asylum, Serbia finally adopted 
an  integration  policy.  In  December  2016,  a  Decree  on  the  Manner  of  Involving  Persons 
Recognized as Refugees in Social, Cultural and Economic Life180 was enacted and entered 

179  See Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, Right to Asylum in the Republic of Serbia in 2016, Belgrade, 2016, 
pp. 103-106, available at www.bgcentar.org.rs/bgcentar/eng-lat/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Right-to-
Asylum-in-the-Republic-of-Serbia-2016-2.pdf, last accessed on 3 May 2017.  

180  Decree on the Manner of Involving Persons Recognized as Refugees in Social, Cultural and Economic Life, 

(Uredba o načinu uključivanja u društveni, kulturni i privredni život lica kojima je priznato pravo na utočište) 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
into force in January 2017. The Decree foresees assistance to various areas crucial to the 
integration  of  refugees,  including  education.  It  stipulates  that  refugee  children  will  be 
provided  with  textbooks,  assistance  in  initiating  the  foreign  school  diploma  recognition, 
study  support  and  financial  aid  for  attending  extracurricular  activities.  In  addition,  it 
stipulates  in  Article  4  that  the  Commissariat  for  Refugees  and  Migrations  will  provide 
Serbian language lessons to refugees,  which is not covered by mainstream education in 
Serbia.  

The  Law  further  specifies  that  it  is  forbidden  to  obstruct  or  prevent  admission  to  an 
educational  institution  for  an  individual  or  a  group  of  persons  on  the  grounds  of  their 
personal  characteristics,  or  to  exclude  them  from  these  institutions,  to  obstruct  or 
prevent  their  attendance  of  classes  and  participation  in  other  educational  activities,  to 
categorise  pupils  on  the  basis  of  personal  characteristics,  to  maltreat  them  and 
unwarrantedly differentiate among them in other ways, and to treat them in an unequal 
manner  (Article  19,  para.  2).  It  is  also  forbidden  to  discriminate  against  educational 
institutions  that  operate  in  accordance  with  the  law  and  other  regulations,  and  against 
people who use or have used the services of these institutions in accordance with the law 
(Article 19, para. 3). 

The Law  on the Fundamentals  of the Education System  is a systemic law in the area of 
education  which  prescribes  an  inclusive  education.  It  states  that  the  education  system 
must  secure  for  all  children,  students  and  adults  equal  rights  to  and  accessibility  of 
education without discrimination on the basis of gender, social, cultural, ethnic, religious 
or  other  affiliation,  residence,  material  or  health  conditions,  difficulties  and  delays  in 
development and disability, as well as on other grounds (Article 3, para. 1).  

Article  6  guarantees  everyone  the  right  to  education.  Citizens  of  the  Republic  of  Serbia 
are equal with regard to exercising their rights to education, regardless of gender, race, 
nationality,  religion  or  language,  social  and  cultural  background,  economic  status,  age, 
physical  and  mental  constitution,  disability,  political  affiliation  or  other  personal 
characteristic. The Law guarantees the right to education of foreign citizens and stateless 
persons,  under  the  same  conditions  and  in  the  manner  prescribed  for  citizens  of  the 
Republic of Serbia. Article 44 prohibits activities that threaten, humiliate, discriminate or 
segregate  people  or  groups  of  people  in  educational  institutions,  on  the  basis  of  race, 
nationality,  ethnicity, 
religion  or  gender,  physical  or  psychological 
characteristics,  disability,  health,  age,  social  or  cultural  background,  economic  status  or 
political  affiliation,  as  well  as  on  other  grounds  stipulated  by  the  LPD.  It  also  prohibits 
encouraging  or  failing  to  prevent  such  activities.  Article  44,  para.  3,  expressly  allows 
special measures that have been introduced to achieve full equality for, protection of and 
advancement of people or groups of people who are in an unequal position. 

language, 

In addition, Article 102, para. 5, of this law stipulates that, in order to obtain approval for 
a textbook, it is necessary to assess whether it meets the quality standards pertaining to 
content,  pedagogical  and  psychological  requirements,  teaching  methodology,  linguistic 
requirements, developmental, graphic, artistic and technical requirements and whether it 
enables the attainment of education principles and objectives, among which are equality 
and the prohibition of discrimination (Article 3, para. 1) and the development and respect 
of  equality  in  relation  to  racial,  national,  cultural,  linguistic,  religious,  gender,  sex  and 
age characteristics, tolerance and respect for diversity (Article 14, para. 15). 

Other  specific  laws  regulate  different  levels  of  education  (preschool,181  primary,182 
secondary183  and  higher  education)184  and  all  contain  provisions  on  the  prohibition  of 

Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 101/2016, 16 December 2016. It only refers to recognised 
refugees and does not explicitly cover subsidiary protection beneficiaries. 

181  Serbia, Law on Preschool Education (Zakon o predškolskom vaspitanju i obrazovanju), Official Gazette of 
the Republic of Serbia, no. 18/2010, 23 March 2010. The principles of preschool education include, inter 
alia, equal rights and access to all forms of preschool education, without discrimination on the basis of 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
discrimination, which cover different grounds. However, Article 3, para. 1, of the Law on 
the Fundamentals of the Education System applies as a systemic law, as well as Article 2, 
para.  1,  of  the  LPD,  which  means  that  all  grounds  covered  in  the  two  EU  directives  are 
covered by these laws as well. 

In  February  2016,  the  Ministry  of  Education,  Science  and  Technological  Development 
after  several  years  of  consultations,  finally  adopted  a  Regulation  on  detailed  criteria  for 
the recognition of forms of discrimination perpetrated by an employee, child, student or 
third  party  in  an  educational  institution.185  After  the  adoption  of  the  Guidelines  for  the 
implementation of the Code, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality and UNICEF 
are  planning  to  prepare  three  guides  for  identifying  and  responding  to  discrimination  in 
education  -  for  teachers,  parents  and  students.  It  is  also  anticipated  to  provide  training 
for  teachers,  school  inspectors,  counsellors,  principals  and  school  administration  to 
implement the measures prescribed by this document. 

a) 

Pupils with disabilities 

In Serbia, the general approach to education for pupils with disabilities does raise certain 
issues. 

The  Law  on  the  Fundamentals  of  the  Education  System  adopted  in  2009  introduced 
inclusive  education  for  the  first  time  and  provides  that  people  with  disabilities  have  the 
right  to  education  respecting  their  educational  needs  in  the  mainstream  education 
system, with additional individual or group support in a special preschool group or school, 
in compliance with this and special laws (Article 6, para. 3). In certain cases, pupils with 
disabilities  will  be  enrolled  in  special  schools,  but  the  majority  of  them  are  integrated 
within the mainstream school system. According to one report from July 2015, there are 
41  schools  in  Serbia  for  children  with  developmental  impairments  (23  primary  schools 
with  preschool  departments,  17  schools  for  primary  and  secondary  education  with 
preschool departments and 1 secondary school).186  

Those  pupils  with  disabilities  who  are  integrated  within  the  mainstream  school  system 
need special support and have an individual teaching plan. According to the Law, parents 
make  the  final  decision  on  which  school  to  enrol  their  children  in  and  schools  must 
respect the decision of the parents, although in some schools there is a lack of additional 
support for children with disabilities. In practice, other problems also exist. Many schools 

gender, social, cultural, ethnic, religious or other affiliation, place of residence or domicile, material or 
health conditions, disability, as well as on other grounds, in accordance with the law (Article 4, par. 2, sec. 
1). 

182  Serbia, Law on Primary Education (Zakon o osnovnom obrazovanju i vaspitanju), Official Gazette of the 

Republic of Serbia, no. 55/2013, 25 June 2013. Article 9 states that the main task of the school is to provide 
education of good quality and education for every child and student, under the same conditions, no matter 
where the school is located, or where the education takes place. People carrying out educational work and 
other people employed in schools must promote equality among all students and actively oppose all forms 
of discrimination and violence. 

183  Serbia, Law on Secondary Education (Zakon o srednjem obrazovanju i vaspitanju), Official Gazette of the 
Republic of Serbia, no. 55/2013, 25 June 2010. Article 2, para. 1, sec. 6 provides as one of the goals of 
secondary education respect for equality in relation to racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, religious, gender, 
sex and age characteristics, tolerance and respect for diversity. 

184  Serbia, Law on Higher Education (Zakon o visokom obrazovanju) Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, 

no. 76/2005, 97/2008, 93/2012, 99/2014, 45/2015 – authentic interpretation, 68/2015, 2 September 2009. 
This Law recognises the principle of respect for human rights and civil freedoms, including prohibition of all 
forms of discrimination and equality of higher education institutions, regardless of their founder or form of 
ownership (Article 4, para. 1, sec. 6 and 9). 

185  Serbia, Regulation on detailed criteria for the recognition of forms of discrimination by an employee, child, 
student or third party in an educational institution (Pravilnik o o blizim kriterijumima za prepoznavanje 
oblika diskriminacije od strane zaposlenog, deteta, ucenika ili treceg lica u ustanovi obrazovanja i 
vaspitanja), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 22/2016, 4 March 2016. 

186  Coalition of NGOs, Alternative report on the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 

Disabilities in the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade, July 2015, p. 20. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
are  still  inaccessible  and  there  is  also  a  lack  of  transportation,  inaccessible  books  and 
teaching equipment which make difficult or prevent children from attending lessons.187  

The  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  also  acknowledges  that  people  with 
disabilities  are  most  discriminated  against  in  the  area  of  education.  In  2016,  24 
complaints  were  submitted  claiming  discrimination  in  education.188  In  addition,  support 
for  children  with  disabilities  is  financed  from  the  local  budget  and  the  level  of  support 
depends  on  the  place  of  residence.  Thus,  in  one  case,  the  mother  of  a  child  with  a 
disability  submitted  a  complaint  against  the  local  municipality  which  didn’t  provide 
personal  assistant  for  her  child.  In  its  statement,  the  local  municipality  responded  that 
financial  means  were  reserved  in  the  budget,  but  the  Ministry  of  Education  has  not  yet 
issued instructions in relation to the engagement and funding of personal assistants. The 
Commissioner  responded  that  uncertainties  in  relation  to  the  engagement  of  personal 
assistants do not limit the responsibility of municipalities to secure additional support for 
children with disabilities.189  

In another case, pedagogical assistants were not provided for six children with disabilities 
enrolled  in  preschool  education.  However,  the  Ministry  of  Education  explained  that 
pedagogical  assistants  are  engaged  only  for  Roma  children.  The  Commissioner 
recommended  to  the  Ministry  to  take  all  necessary  measures  within  its  competence 
without delay to ensure the engagement of pedagogical assistants for children who need 
additional  support  in  education.190  In  a  third  case,  the  municipality  failed  to  secure  the 
right to free transport to and from school for one child with a disability, which prevented 
him  from  full inclusion in  the  education  system.  The  Commissioner  found  discrimination 
and  recommended  to  the  municipality  to  take  all  necessary  measures  within  its 
competence to enable all students and pupils with disabilities to exercise the right to free 
transport to and from school.191  

In July 2015, the Law on Textbooks192 was adopted with the aim of publishing textbooks 
in all accessible formats: audio, audiovisual, large print and Braille (Article 10, para. 5). 
This  Law  also  recognises  the  use  of  special  books  for  children  with  developmental 
disabilities.  However,  Article  4,  para.  1,  prescribes  that  the  content  and  format  of 
textbooks for children with developmental disabilities can be adjusted to their capabilities 
and needs. In other words, it may be shorter in content and therefore lead to differences 
in  achievement.  The  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  gave  an  opinion  that 
introducing  special  textbooks  for  children  with  developmental  disabilities  is  contrary  to 
the LPD, but despite this opinion, the provision on special textbooks was  included in the 
Law.193  

In  addition,  Article  18  of  the  LPDPD  prohibits  discrimination  based  on  disability  at  all 
levels of education. It is prohibited:  

187  Coalition of NGOs, Alternative report on the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 

Disabilities in the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade, July 2015, p. 20. 

188  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 78. 

189  Serbia, Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (Poverenik za zaštitu ravnopravnosti), A.M. v. 

municipality Prijepolje, complaint no. 07-00-61/2016-02, opinion from 4 April 2016. 

190  Serbia, Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (Poverenik za zaštitu ravnopravnosti), association of 

parents K. v. Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, complaint no. 07-00-
789/2016-02, opinion from 31 March 2016. 

191  Serbia, Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (Poverenik za zaštitu ravnopravnosti), M.R. v. 

municipality Raska and municipality council, complaint no. 07-00-230/2016-02, opinion from 20 July 2016. 

192  Serbia, Law on Textbooks (Zakon o udžbenicima), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 68/2015, 

12 August 2015.  

193  Commissioner for the rotection of Equality (2016), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2015, Belgrade, p. 24. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1)  

2)  

3)  

to deny admission of pupils and students with disabilities to educational institutions 
which  correspond  to  their  previously  acquired  knowledge  and  educational 
capabilities; 
to  exclude people with disabilities  from  educational institutions for reasons related 
to their disability; 
to  set  non-disability  as  a  special  condition  for  admission  to  an  educational 
institution, including the submission of a certificate of health and prior checking of 
psychological  and  physical  abilities,  unless  that  requirement  is  in  accordance  with 
the regulations governing the particular field of education.  

However,  Article  19  provides  two  exceptions  to  the  prohibition  of  discrimination: 
ascertaining  the  specific  preferences  of  preschool  children,  pupils  or  students  for 
admission to an educational institution for a particular subject or group of subjects, their 
artistic  affinities  or  special  talents  (para.  1);  and  the  organisation  of  specific  forms  of 
teaching  or  education  for  pupils  and  preschool  children  who,  due  to  insufficient 
intellectual  capacity,  cannot  follow  regular  courses,  and  their  referral  to  these  forms  of 
teaching  or  education,  if  this  is  done  on  the  basis  of  actions  by  a  competent  authority, 
which determines the need for such education (para. 2).  

Since  Article  19,  para.  2,  unduly  makes  a  distinction  between  children  with  intellectual 
disabilities  and  other  children,  in  2011  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality 
submitted  an  initiative  to  amend  this  article,  but  the  initiative  has  not  yet  received 
support.194 

b) 

Trends and patterns regarding Roma pupils 

In  Serbia,  specific  patterns  exist  in  education  regarding  Roma  pupils,  such  as 
segregation.  Segregation  of  Roma  children  is  still  present  in  certain  schools;  there  are 
schools  attended  by  a  large  percentage  of  Roma  children,  which  also  leads  to 
segregation,  and  there  are  frequent  problems  related  to  the  attitudes  of  the  teaching 
staff  and  the  community  towards  Roma  pupils.  The  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of 
Equality in its Report for 2016 underlines the fact that Roma children are still victims of 
prejudice and various forms of discrimination, including segregation (e.g. schools with a 
majority of Roma pupils, so-called ‘Roma’ schools, and the over-representation of Roma 
children  in  schools  for  the  education  of  children  with  disabilities),  as  one  of  the  worst 
violations  of  the  right  of  children  to  education.195  Thus,  in  2016,  the  Commissioner 
prepared  a  publication  entitled  ‘Prevention  of  segregation,  development  of  inclusive 
enrolment  policies  and  desegregation  of  schools  and  departments:  international 
experience  and  recommendations  for  the  improvement  of  practice  in  Serbia’,  with  the 
aim  of  raising  awareness  about  this  problem  and  informing  the  wider  public  about  the 
relevant international standards and practice in this area.196  

In  one  report  prepared  by  the  European  Roma  Rights  Centre  and  Praxis,  it  was  also 
noted  that  Roma  children  are  disproportionately  represented  in  ’special  schools’, 
excluding  them  from  equal  access  to  quality  education.197  Although  the  implementation 

194  Serbia, Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (Poverenik za zaštitu ravnopravnosti), opinion no. 

1080/2011, 3 November 2011. 

195  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 103. 

196  Prevention of segregation, development of inclusive enrolment policies and desegregation of schools and 
departments: international experience and recommendations for the improvement of practice in Serbia 
(Prevencija segregacije, razvoj inkluzivnih upisnih politika i desegregacija skola i odeljenja: medjunarodna 
iskustva i predlozi za unapredjenje prakse u Srbiji), Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, Belgrade, 
2016, http://ravnopravnost.gov.rs/prevencija-segregacije-razvoj-inkluzivnih-upisnih-politika/, last accessed 
on 15 March 2017. 

197  Written Comments by the European Roma Rights Centre and Praxis, For Consideration by the Committee on 
the Rights of the Child at the Concluding Observations of the 74th Session (16 January to 3 February 2017), 
ERRC, Praxis, December 2016, p. 2.  

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
of  the  Law  on  the  Fundamentals  of  the  Education  System  led  to  a  decline  in  the 
proportion  and  overall  number  of  Roma  pupils  in  special  education,  the  increase  in  the 
number of Roma pupils transferred from mainstream schools to special schools remains. 
It  was  also  noted  that,  although  general  steps  were  taken  to  reduce  the  use  of  special 
schools, no particular measures have been taken with regard to Roma pupils.198 

The  Ministry  of  Education,  Science  and  Technological  Development  is  combating 
discrimination  of  Roma  children  in  schools  by  hiring  175  teaching  assistants  to  provide 
support  to  Roma  children.  It  also  plans  to  work  on  adopting  the  new  handbook  on  the 
teaching  assistance  the  pupils  receive,  which  will  set  out  in  more  detail  the  conditions 
and criteria for their engagement.199 In addition, the Ministry of Justice underlined in its 
report on the implementation of the Action Plan for Chapter 23 (covering the negotiations 
for accession by the Republic of Serbia to the EU), that a Rulebook had been adopted on 
the criteria and procedures for the admission of Roma pupils to secondary schools under 
more favourable conditions, in order to achieve full equality. This Rulebook was adopted 
in February 2016,200 with the aim of regulating positive measures that had been applied 
since 2003, on the basis of which 3 500 Roma pupils were enrolled in secondary schools, 
automatically receiving 30 points on the list for the system through which school places 
are allocated.201 With the application of the Rulebook, 1 512 pupils of Roma origin were 
enrolled  in  secondary  schools  in  the  2016/17  school  year,  compared  to  the  previous 
academic  year  when  that  number  was  only  420.202  However,  one  analysis  published  in 
June 2016 demonstrates that discrimination  against Roma children is still widespread in 
schools  and  that  combating  discrimination  is  the  necessary  first  step  before  more 
individual assessments of lessons for each child are prepared.203 

The  Strategy  for  the  Social  Inclusion  of  Roma  in  the  Republic  of  Serbia  for  the  period 
2016-2025 adopted on 3 March 2016 describes how Roma are still discriminated against 
in  education.  One  of  the  goals  is  to  reduce  the  drop-out  rate  of  Roma  pupils  from  the 
education  system.  which  requires  improvement  of  practice  in  schools  and  social  work 
centres in the areas of both prevention and intervention.  

3.2.9  Access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services  which  are  available  to  the 

public (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) 

In Serbia, national legislation does not prohibit discrimination in relation to access to and 
supply  of  goods  and  services  as  formulated  in  the  Racial  Equality  Directive. 

198  Written Comments by the European Roma Rights Centre and Praxis, For Consideration by the Committee on 
the Rights of the Child at the Concluding Observations of the 74th Session (16 January to 3 February 2017), 
ERRC, Praxis, December 2016, p. 2. 

199  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 80. 

200  Serbia, Rules on the criteria and procedures for admission of students belonging to the Roma national 

minority to secondary schools under favourable conditions for the achievement of full equality (Pravilnik o 
merilima i postupku za upis ucenika – pripadnika romske nacionalne manjine u srednju skolu pod 
povoljnijim uslovima radi postizanja pune ravnopravnosti), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 
12/2016, 12 March 2016. 

201  RTS, Polemika o podsticaju za upis romske dece u srednje skole [Controversy about the incentives for 

enrolment of Roma children in secondary schools], last accessed on 11 June 2017. 
http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/sr/story/125/drustvo/2323958/drzava-pomaze-romima-prilikom-upisa-u-
srednju-skolu.html 

202  Republic of Serbia, Council for the implementation of the Action Plan for Chapter 23, 2016, p. 206. 
203  Social Inclusion and Poverty reduction Unit, Analiza primene afirmativnih mera u oblasti, obrazovanja Roma 
i Romkinja i preporuke za unapredjenje mera (Analysis of the application of affirmative measures for Roma 
in the area of education and recommendations for the improvement of these measures), Belgrade, 2016, 
http://socijalnoukljucivanje.gov.rs/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Analiza-primene-afirmativnih-mera-u-
oblasti-obrazovanja-Roma-i-Romkinja-i-preporuke-za-unapredjenje-mera.pdf, last accessed on 15 March 
2017.  

59 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Discrimination is prohibited in the provision of services for all grounds,204 but there is no 
provision prohibiting discrimination in access to and supply of goods on any ground.  

Article 17, para. 1, of the LPD prohibits discrimination in the provision of public services, 
but not goods, and does not include housing. It states that discrimination is considered to 
take  place  ‘if  a  legal  or  physical  entity,  within  the  framework  of  its/his/her  activities  or 
profession, refuses to provide a service on the grounds of a personal characteristic of an 
individual  or  a  group  of  persons,  or  if  the  said  entity,  in  order  to  provide  the  service  in 
question,  requires  the  fulfilment  of  some  condition  that  is  not  required  of  other 
individuals  or  groups  of  persons,  or  if  the  said  entity  unwarrantedly  gives  priority  to 
another individual or a group of persons when it comes to providing a service’. In other 
words,  the  term  ‘public  services’  refers  to  services  available  to  the  public  (whether 
provided by private or public authorities, entities, companies, etc.). 

Furthermore,  Article  17,  para.  2,  of  the  LPD  also  guarantees  to  everyone  ‘the  right  to 
equal access to premises in public use (such as premises where the head offices of public 
administration bodies are located, premises used in the spheres of education, healthcare, 
social  welfare,  culture,  sports  and  tourism,  premises  used  for  the  purpose  of 
environmental  protection  and  protection  against  natural  disasters),  as  well  as  public 
spaces (such as parks, squares, streets, pedestrian crossings and other public transport 
roads), in accordance with the law’.  

The LPDPD contains several provisions which relate to the provision of services to people 
with  disabilities.  Thus,  Article  13,  para.  1,  prohibits  discrimination  based  on  disability in 
terms of the availability of services and access to public premises. Article 13, para. 2, of 
the  LPDPD  defines  service  as  any  service  which  a  legal  entity  or  an  individual,  with  or 
without pay, provides in the course of its activities or permanent occupation. In addition, 
Article 13, para. 3, explains what is meant by premises and public areas: premises in the 
fields of education, health, social protection, culture, sport, tourism, or premises used for 
the  protection  of  the  environment  or  protection  from  natural  disasters  etc.;  and  Article 
13,  para.  4,  sets  out  what  are  considered  to  be  public  areas  (such  as  parks,  green 
spaces, squares, pedestrian crossings and other public roads).  

Discrimination includes, in particular:  

- 

- 

- 

refusal  to  provide  services  to  people  with  disabilities,  unless  the  provision  of  the 
services  would  endanger  the  life  or  health  of  people  with  disabilities  or  other 
people;  
the  provision  of  services  to  people  with  disabilities  under  different  and  more 
onerous  conditions  than  those  under  which  the  service  is  provided  to  other  users, 
unless  the  provision  of  services  under  usual  conditions  endanger  the  life  or  health 
of people with disabilities or other people; and 
refusal  to  make  technical  adaptations  to  facilities  necessary  to  provide  services  to 
people with disabilities (Article 13, para. 5). 

Article 14 further prescribes that an increase in the costs of services which is proportional 
to the costs of the services provided, provision of services that serve to meet the specific 
needs  of  people  with  disabilities,  as  well  as  activities  intended  to  eliminate  and  combat 
new  forms  of  discrimination  in  this  area  cannot  be  deemed  as  discrimination.  The  Law 
prescribes  as  a  particularly  serious  type  of  discrimination  harassment,  insults  and 
humiliation  of  people  with  disabilities  when  these  acts  are  performed  by  a  person 
providing  services  directly  or  by  their  superior  (Article  15).  The  owner  of  a  property  in 

204  This includes race, skin colour, ancestry, citizenship, national affiliation or ethnic origin, language, religious 

or political beliefs, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, financial position, birth, genetic 
characteristics, health, disability, marital and family status, previous convictions, age, appearance, 
membership of political, trade union and other organisations or any other ground. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
public  use,  as  well  as  the  public  company  responsible  for  the  maintenance  of  public 
spaces,  is  obliged  to  provide  access  to  buildings  for  public  use  and  public  areas  for  all 
people  with  disabilities,  regardless  of  the  type  and  degree  of  their  disability  (Article  16, 
para. 1). 

The owner of a property in public use is obliged to adapt the facility in order to meet the 
conditions for its accessibility for people with disabilities (Article 16, para. 3). 

3.2.9.1  Distinction between goods and services available publicly or privately 

In Serbia, national law distinguishes between  goods and services available to the public 
(e.g.  in  shops,  restaurants  or  banks)  and  those  only  available  privately  (e.g.  limited  to 
members of a private association). However, the term ‘public services’ used in Article 17, 
para. 1, refers to services available to the public (whether  provided by private or public 
authorities, entities, companies, etc.).  

The LPDPD also prohibits discrimination based on disability in terms of the availability of 
services and access to public premises. Article 13, para. 2, of the LPDPD defines service 
as  any  service  which  a  legal  entity  or  individual,  with  or  without  pay,  provides  in  the 
course of its activities or permanent occupation.  

In  2016,  9.4 %  of  all  complaints  submitted  to  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of 
Equality came from people who considered themselves to be victims of discrimination in 
relation to the provision of services.205 In one case, an NGO organised several seminars 
on the topic ‘No-one is free unless we are all free’, as part of the ‘LGBTI wagon’ project. 
However, the director of a cultural centre refused to rent out the space for this purpose. 
He  didn’t  have  any  objective  justification  for  such  a  decision  and  the  Commissioner  for 
the  Protection  of  Equality  determined  the  existence  of  discrimination  based  on  sexual 
orientation.  It  recommended  to  the  cultural  centre  to  send  a  letter  of  apology  to  the 
NGO, to refrain from future violations of anti-discrimination laws, and to post this opinion 
on the bulletin board. These recommendations have been fully complied with.206  

In  another  case,  a  complaint  was  submitted  by  an  NGO  that  provides  free  legal  aid  to 
asylum seekers. The complaint was lodged in the name of asylum seeker M.N., a Syrian 
citizen.207 The  NGO  claimed that  Bank V. required the  fulfilment of  additional conditions 
by  asylum  seekers  compared  to  other  foreigners  in  the  Republic  of  Serbia,  when 
providing  money  transfer  services  through  MoneyGram.  Between  February  and 
November 2015 the NGO received many complaints from asylum seekers who stated that 
this  bank  required  a  certificate  of  registration  in  order  to  carry  out  money  transfer 
services.  As  an  illustration,  the  NGO  claimed  that  M.  N.  from  Syria  was  denied  this 
service on 12 February 2016, because although he had a passport and reference number 
for the transaction, he  didn’t have a certificate of  registration in the Republic of Serbia. 
As an asylum seeker, he had a certificate that was not valid after 72 hours. Although the 
Asylum Office of the Ministry of the Interior is obliged to register asylum seekers and to 
issue them with an ID document, this usually takes several months and asylum seekers 
are  left  without  any  documents.  Moreover,  it  was  claimed  that  the  condition  relating  to 
the  certificate  of  registration  was  not  imposed  by  MoneyGram,  but  was  the  result  of 
discriminatory treatment by the bank. 

Bank V. claimed that it requires the certificate of registration for all foreigners who reside 
in  Serbia  for  more  than  24  hours.  In  addition,  the  transactions  performed  by  migrants 

205  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 7. 

206  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 129.  

207  Serbia, Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (Poverenik za zaštitu ravnopravnosti), NGO C.Z.P.T.A. v. 

Bank V.a.d. N.S. complaint no. 07-00-668/2016-02, opinion from 29 March 2016. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
are highly risky under the guidelines for the assessment of the risk of money laundering 
and  financing  of  terrorism  and  therefore  the  bank  applies  enhanced  monitoring 
measures.  

In  delivering  its  opinion  on  this  issue,  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality 
relied  on  Article  14  of  the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights,  Article  21  of  the 
Constitution  prohibiting  discrimination  and  Article  57  which  guarantees  the  right  to 
asylum, as well as Articles 2, para. 1 (1), 8 and 17, para. 1, of the Law on the Prohibition 
of Discrimination. It also referred to the Law on Foreigners, the Law on the Prevention of 
Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism and the Law on Asylum. In assessing this 
case,  the  Commissioner  first  analysed  the  general  terms  and  conditions  of  the 
MoneyGram service and concluded that it requires only the reference number and one or 
more forms of government-issued identification to transfer the money (passport, driver’s 
licence, national identity card, etc.).  

M.N. fulfilled these conditions, but was denied the service as Bank V. required from him 
the fulfilment of additional conditions. Although the Commissioner underlined that banks 
are  entitled  to  assess  the  risk  of  certain  transactions  in  relation  to  the  financing  of 
terrorism  and  money  laundering,  the  bank  in  this  case  did  not  prove  that  the  expiry  of 
the  certificate  issued  to  asylum  seekers  presents  a  security  risk  to  the  performance  of 
financial  transactions.  The  Commissioner  found  that  Bank  V.  does  not  require  the  same 
conditions  for  all  foreigners  and  that  it  did  not  explain  how  this  additional  document 
enabled  the  assessment  of  suspicious  transactions.  The  Commissioner  requested  that 
Bank  V.  provide  services  to  all  clients  under  the  same  conditions  and  avoid  negative 
generalisations directed against members of certain ethnic groups.  

This  case  is  very  important  as  the  Commissioner  highlighted  the  vulnerable  position  of 
asylum seekers, who travel for months through different countries, fleeing war, in order 
to start a new life. The Commissioner concluded that the money transfer services for this 
group  of  people  are  of  crucial  importance  for  their  existence,  and  withholding  or 
hindering  the  provision  of  these  services  could  lead  to  significant  consequences 
jeopardising their existence. However, bearing in mind that in this case Syrian nationals 
were  considered  to  be  particularly  suspicious,  it  would  be  easier  to  find  discrimination 
based on the nationality of different asylum seekers who are in the same position, than 
to  base  this  case  on  the  difference  between  foreigners  and  asylum  seekers  who  are 
indeed in a very different position.  

3.2.10 Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) 

In  Serbia,  national  legislation  does  not  explicitly  prohibit  discrimination  in  relation  to 
housing as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive. The LPD does not include housing 
in Section III where it covers special cases of discrimination. However, Article 4, para. 1, 
of  the  LPD  says  that  all  people  are  equal  and  shall  enjoy  equal  status  and  equal  legal 
protection  regardless  of  personal  characteristics.  This  provision  does  not  limit  the 
application  of  the  LPD  to  the  special  cases  of  discrimination  covered  by  part  III  of  the 
Law, and it means that housing is also protected.  

There  is  a  special  law  that  deals  with  housing:  the  Law  on  Housing  and  Building 
Maintenance.208 This Law was adopted at the end of 2016 and regulates issues of housing 
usage, eviction and housing support, which is defined as any form of support in relation 
to housing for a citizen who cannot meet their housing needs under market conditions for 
themselves  and  their  family  household,  due  to  any  social,  economic  or  other  reasons 
(Article 89, para. 1).  However, according to Article 89, para. 1, beneficiaries  of housing 
support  must  be  Serbian  citizens.  Beneficiaries  of  housing  assistance  are,  in  particular, 

208  Serbia, Law on Housing and Building Maintenance (Zakon o stanovanju i odrzavanju zgrada), Official 

Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 104/2016, 23 December 2016. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
homeless  or  temporarily  homeless  people,  victims  of  domestic  violence  without 
accommodation,  people  without  accommodation  who  are  in  receipt  of  social  assistance, 
and people with disabilities who have nowhere to live. The Law also sets out in Article 80 
what  is  considered  to  be  adequate  accommodation,  which  is  a  property  ‘that  meets 
conditions  according  to  the  criteria  of  space,  basic  services,  structural  safety  and 
security, and protection from external climate impacts, as well as meeting basic hygiene 
standards’.  

The Law establishes that the municipality has jurisdiction to carry out a forced eviction if 
an  individual  moves  into  an  apartment  or  common  areas  of  residential  or  commercial 
buildings  without  legal  ground.  In  such  cases  the  residential  community  manager,  the 
owner  of a  separate part  of the building  or another person with  a legal interest has the 
right  to  put  in  an  eviction  request  to  the  local  municipality  with  a  90-day  deadline  for 
eviction. On the other hand, the eviction of people from a building built illegally is carried 
out when necessary and justified in the public interest, primarily to protect the lives and 
health  of  people  and  for  the  protection  of  property,  or  when  land  is  foreseen  for  the 
construction of buildings of public interest.209  

Asylum  seekers  are  provided  with  accommodation  and  basic  living  conditions  at  an 
asylum  centre,  from  when  they  express  their  intention  to  seek  asylum  until  a  final 
decision  on  their  asylum  application  has  been  made.  There  are  currently  five  migration 
centres  with  a  total  capacity  of  1 200.210  They  are  all  of  an  open  type  and  have  house 
rules,211 which prescribe conditions of accommodation and ensure basic living standards. 
As a result of the migration crisis, the authorities opened temporary reception centres in 
order  to  provide  emergency  reception  facilities  for  people  who  wanted  to  continue  their 
trip  to  preferred  destination  countries  in  the  EU.  These  centres  are  meant  only  for 
temporary  accommodation  and  humanitarian  assistance,  and  are  not  suitable  for  long-
term stay.212 As of the end of 2016, there are 12 temporary reception facilities that can 
accommodate  3 683  people.213  According  to  Article  44  of  the  Law  on  Asylum,  people 
granted  international  protection  (refugees  and  subsidiary  protection)  are  entitled  to 
accommodation  commensurate  with  the  capacities  of  Serbia,  up  to  a  year  after  their 
status becomes final. This means provision of specific housing or financial aid in order to 
rent a home.214 

3.2.10.1 Trends and patterns regarding housing segregation for Roma 

In  Serbia,  there  are  patterns  of  housing  segregation  and  discrimination  against  the 
Roma.  Roma  face  discrimination  and  exclusion  in  all  spheres  of  life.  Unemployment  is 
particularly  high  among  the  Roma  and  those  who  are  employed  are  usually  in  low  paid 
positions. Poverty is widespread and many people do not have access to such necessities 
as electricity or even clean water.  Living conditions are particularly appalling in informal 

209  These interests exist, under Article 78, when: 1) the land is unfavourable for construction; 2) it is 

undertaken during the preparation for the implementation of an investment project and if it has previously 
been proven that there is no alternative for relocation; 3) the settlement is located near natural resources, 
or near a protected cultural heritage area; 4) the settlement is located in protected zones around military 
facilities or infrastructure with a special purpose. 

210  Banja Koviljaca (100), Bogodvadja (200), Tutin (150), Sjenica (250) and Krnjaca (500). IOM Mixed 

Migration Flows in the Mediterranean: Compilation of Available Data and Information, 1 Feb – 28 February 
2017. 

211  Rules on conditions of accommodation and provision of basic living conditions in asylum centres, Official 

Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 31/2008, 28 March 2008. 
212  AIDA, Asylum Information Database, Country Report: Serbia, p. 29. 
213  Presevo (1.500), Bujanovac (250), Pirot (232), Dimitrovgrad (66), Bosilegrad (50), Divljana (150), 

Principovac (300), Sid (560), Adasevci (250), Obrenovac (200), Sombor (120) and Subotica (300). See 
AIDA, Types of Accommodation, Serbia, Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, available at 
www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/serbia/types-accommodation, last accessed on 15 April 2017. 

214  Allocation of accommodation, priorities and other questions are regulated by the Decree 
on Criteria for Establishing Priority Accommodation for Persons Granted the Right to Refuge or Subsidiary 

Protection and the Conditions for the Use of Temporary Housing, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, 
no. 63/20015, 17 July 2015. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
settlements where mainly Roma displaced from Kosovo or forcibly returned from abroad 
live.  They  tend  to  move  towards  bigger  cities  where  they  have  more  opportunities  and 
usually  live  in  informal  settlements  on  peripheral  sites.  Many  of  them  are  exposed  to 
forcible eviction. This is documented in many reports. For example, a Special Rapporteur 
on  adequate  housing  found  that  there  are  reportedly  583  informal  settlements  across 
Serbia, of varying sizes.215  

Living  conditions  in  settlements  are  often  inadequate,  with  virtually  no  utilities  or 
infrastructure  such  as  electricity,  piped  drinking  water,  sewage  or  regular  waste 
collection. In some cases, other essential services such as ambulances or public transport 
are  not  available.  Many  are  isolated  from  employment,  schools  and  medical  centres. 216 
Many claimants stated that evictions took place without consultation, due process of law 
or  the  possibility  of  alternative  accommodation.  Moreover,  the  disproportionate  number 
of evictions of Roma and the authorities’ failure to provide basic services or to guarantee 
legal  security  of  tenure  for  residents  in  settlements  reflect  a  stigmatisation  of  and 
discrimination against Roma.  

It is therefore significant that the Law on Housing and Building Maintenance was adopted 
at the end of 2016.217 This  Law  sets out  for the first time, in Article 79,  conditions that 
must  be  fulfilled  in  cases  of  forced  eviction.  First,  the  Law  requires  the  municipality 
bringing  the  eviction  order  to  secure  alternative  accommodation.  This  accommodation 
must  satisfy  certain  conditions:  1)  adequate  location  which  is  near  to  basic  communal 
infrastructure  and  accessibility  of  public  services;  2)  adequate  price;  3)  adequate  space 
(no  less  than  8  m2  per  person  in  the  household);  4)  basic  electrical  equipment,  water 
supply and sanitary installations; and 5) satisfactory conditions with regard to safety and 
security.  

The  Rapporteur  also  documented  one  positive  case.  Namely,  in  July  2015,  the  Special 
Rapporteur  raised  concerns  about  the  imminent  risk  of  eviction  of  a  Roma  community 
from an informal settlement. The eviction was suspended by the municipal authorities on 
the basis of the application of relevant international standards, which is the first case in 
which  international  law  has  been  applied  directly  to  an  eviction  from  informal  Roma 
settlements in Serbia.218 

215  Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to 

an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context on her mission to 
Serbia and Kosovo, A/HRC/31/54, Add.2, 26 February 2016, p. 9. 

216  In this case, the eviction was suspended by the municipal authorities on the basis of provisions of the 
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and in view of proceedings before the 
European Court of Human Rights regarding similar cases. Human Rights Council, Report of the Special 
Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the 
right to non-discrimination in this context on her mission to Serbia and Kosovo, A/HRC/31/54, Add.2, 26 
February 2016, p. 10.  

217  Serbia, Law on Housing and Building Maintenance (Zakon o stanovanju i odrzavanju zgrada), Official 

Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 104/2016, 23 December 2016. 

218  Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to 

an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context on her mission to 
Serbia and Kosovo, A/HRC/31/54, Add.2, 26 February 2016, p. 10. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4 

EXCEPTIONS 

4.1  Genuine and determining occupational requirements (Article 4) 

In  Serbia,  national  legislation  provides  for  an  exception  for  genuine  and  determining 
occupational requirements. 

Article  16,  para.  3,  of  the  LPD  states  that,  ‘different  treatment,  exclusion  or  giving 
priority  on  account  of  the  specific  character  of  a  job,  for  which  an  individual’s  personal 
characteristic constitutes a genuine and decisive precondition for performing the said job, 
if  the  objective  to  be  achieved  is  justified,  shall  not  be  considered  to  constitute 
discrimination’.  This  definition  does  not  explicitly  state  that  such  a  requirement  should 
adhere to the proportionality principle. However, Article 8 of the LPD is applicable in this 
case, as it says that a violation of the principle of equality shall occur, ‘if an individual or 
a  group  of  persons,  on  account  of  his/her  or  their  personal  characteristics,  is 
unwarrantedly denied rights and freedoms or has obligations imposed that, in the same 
or  a  similar  situation,  are  not  denied  to  or  imposed  upon  another  person  or  group  of 
persons,  if  the  objective  or  the  consequence  of  the  measures  undertaken  is  unjustified, 
and if the measures undertaken are not proportional with the objective achieved’. 

In  addition,  the  Labour  Law  contains  the  same  provision  and  prescribes  in  Article  22, 
para.  1,  that  different  treatment,  exclusion  or  giving  priority  on  account  of  the  specific 
character of a job shall not be considered as discrimination where the nature of a job is 
such,  or  where  a  job  is  performed  in  such  conditions,  that  it  constitutes  a  genuine  and 
decisive precondition for performing the said job and where the purpose intended to be 
achieved is justified. 

4.2  Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) Directive 

2000/78) 

In  Serbia,  national  law  does  not  provide  for  an  exception  for  employers  with  an  ethos 
based on religion or belief as it is defined in Article 4, para. 2, of Directive 2000/78/EC. 
However,  the  LPD  provides  for  a  somewhat  different  exception  by  stipulating  in  Article 
18,  para.  2,  that,  ‘The  conduct  of  priests,  that  is  to  say,  religious  officials,  which  is  in 
keeping  with  a  religious  doctrine,  beliefs  or  the  objectives  of  churches  and  religious 
communities entered in the register of religious communities, in accordance with the law 
regulating the freedom of religion and the status of churches and religious communities, 
shall  not  be  considered  to  constitute  discrimination’.  The  register  is  maintained  by  the 
ministry  responsible  for  religious  affairs  in  accordance  with  the  Law  on  Churches  and 
Religious Organisations.219 This provision is unclear, as it is not entirely certain what type 
of  conduct  this  would  pertain  to;  and  it  seems  to  be  very  problematic  as  it  provides  a 
blanket exemption for religious officials. 

- 

Conflicts  between  rights  of  organisations  with  an  ethos  based  on  religion  or  belief 
and other rights to non-discrimination 

In Serbia, there are specific provisions in this area relating to conflicts between the rights 
of  organisations  with  an  ethos  based  on  religion  or  belief  and  other  rights  to  non-
discrimination. 

The Law on Churches and Religious Organisations recognises traditional churches220 and 
religious communities,221 confessional communities222 and other religious organisations223 
(Article 4). 

219  Serbia, Law on Churches and Religious Organisations, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 

36/2006, 27 April 2006. 

220  Article 10, para. 1 treats traditional churches as those which have a centuries-long historical continuity and 
whose legal subjectivity was acquired on the basis of special laws, and they are: the Serbian Orthodox 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
All other religious organisations (communities), including those already registered, need 
to  seek  re-registration  through  the  newly  established  procedures  which  mean  that  they 
are  required  to  fulfil  additional  criteria.  The  process  is  discriminatory  and  could  cause 
groups which currently enjoy legal status to lose that status.  

The  Law  on  Churches  and  Religious  Organisations  guarantees  general  religious  freedom 
to religious organisations which are registered. Article 2 prohibits discrimination, but only 
against  natural  persons  as  opposed  to  legal  persons  (i.e.  it  does  not  address 
discrimination  between  churches  or  communities).  The  law  does  not  make  it  clear  that 
everyone is entitled to enjoy freedom of religion irrespective of whether or not they are a 
member  of  a  church  or  religious  community  which  has  been  registered  in  accordance 
with the Law on Churches and Religious Organisations. 

Article  6  guarantees  the  independence  of  churches  and  religious  organisations  from  the 
State  and  proclaims  their  equality  before  the  law,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  they  are  free 
and  autonomous  in  determining  their  religious  identities.  Article  8,  para.  2,  further 
establishes  that  the  performance  of  priestly  duties  and  religious  services  are  subject  to 
autonomous  regulations  by  churches  and  religious  communities.  However,  confessional 
communities  and  other  religious  organisations  are  exempt  from  these  rights  and 
freedoms. Furthermore, neither they nor unregistered religious organisations are entitled 
to  the  rights  and  benefits  enshrined  in  Articles  26-30,  such  as  property  rights  and  tax 
exemptions.  They  may  also  have  difficulty  in  printing  and  distributing  literature  and 
materials, opening bank accounts, securing sites and spaces for prayer and worship and 
in  property  sales.  Moreover,  only  the  children  of  members  of  the  ‘traditional  churches 
and  religious  communities’  can  receive  religious  education  in  accordance  with  their  own 
faith.  

- 

Religious institutions affecting employment in state funded entities 

In  Serbia,  religious  institutions  are  permitted  to  select  people  (on  the  basis  of  their 
religion) for employment or dismissal from a job if the post is in a State entity or in an 
entity financed by the State. Religious institutions can discriminate, if this is required or 
allowed  by  their  religious  doctrines.  Article  6  of  the  Law  on  Churches  establishes  that 
churches  and  religious  communities  are  independent  of  the  State  and  equal  before  the 
law.  They  are  free  and  autonomous  in  defining  their  identity.  Churches  and  religious 
communities  have  the  right  to  independently  regulate  and  conduct  their  structure  and 
organisation and to independently conduct their internal and public affairs. Churches can 
obtain accreditation and establish schools at all levels of education which have the right 
to  be  financed  from  State  funds  (Article  36,  para.  2).  In  order  to  promote  religious 
freedoms  and  education,  the  State  may  offer  financial  support  to  religious  educational 
institutions  which  are  not  included  in  the  education  system.  Religious  education 
institutions have organisational and curricular autonomy (Article 37, para. 1). 

Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Slovak Evangelical Church, the Christian Reformed Church and the 
Evangelical Christian Church. 

221  Traditional religious communities are those which have a centuries-long historical continuity and whose legal 
subjectivity was acquired on the basis of special laws, and they are: the Islamic religious community and 
the Jewish religious community (Article 10, para. 2). 

222  In Article 16 ‘confessional communities’ are defined as all churches and religious organisations whose legal 
status was regulated with an application in accordance with two laws adopted in the former Yugoslavia. 
These two laws are the Law on the Legal Status of Religious Organisations (Zakon o pravnom položaju 
verskih zajednica), Official Gazette of the FPRY, no. 22/1953 and the Law on the Legal Status of Religious 
Organisations (Zakon o pravnom položaju verskih zajednica), Official Gazette of the SRS, no. 44/1977. 

223  There is no further, more precise definition of the category of ‘other religious organisations’. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
4.3  Armed  forces  and  other  specific  occupations  (Article  3(4)  and  Recital  18 

Directive 2000/78) 

In  Serbia,  national  anti-discrimination  legislation  does  not  provide  for  an  exception  for 
the  armed  forces  in  relation  to  age  or  disability  discrimination  (Article  3(4),  Directive 
2000/78/EC).  

Article 16, para. 2, of the LPD, which prohibits discrimination in the sphere of labour, also 
establishes  protection  for  members  of  the  army.  It  also  specifies  that  some  categories 
can be  exposed to protective measures, such  as women, pregnant women,  women who 
have recently given birth, parents, minors and people with disabilities.  

In  addition,  Article  23  of  the  LPDPD  stipulates  that  the  following  are  not  considered  to 
constitute  discrimination  based  on  disability:  the  selection  of  candidates  without 
disabilities  who  showed  the  best  result  on  an  assessment  of  psychological  and  physical 
abilities, which are directly related to the job requirements; and the adoption of incentive 
measures to fast-track employment of people with disabilities, in accordance with the law 
governing the employment of people with disabilities.  

However, some specific professions are not  exempt from the application of this law and 
in such cases the genuine occupational requirement exemption can be applied. 

4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) 

a)  Discrimination on the ground of nationality 

In  Serbia,  national  law  does  not  include  exceptions  relating  to  difference  in  treatment 
based  on nationality. Article 2, para. 2, of the LPD  explains that the  terms ‘person’ and 
‘everyone’ in the Law are used to designate an individual residing on the territory of the 
Republic  of  Serbia  or  a  territory  under  its  jurisdiction,  regardless  of  whether  that 
individual is a national of the Republic of Serbia,  another state or a stateless person, as 
well as any legal entity registered or operating on the territory of the Republic of Serbia. 
Furthermore,  Article  3  proclaims  that  everyone  shall  have  the  right  to  obtain  effective 
protection  from  all  forms  of  discrimination  from  the  authorised  courts  and  other  public 
administration  bodies  of  the  Republic  of  Serbia.  A  foreign  national  in  the  Republic  of 
Serbia, in accordance with international treaties, shall have all the rights guaranteed by 
the Constitution and by law, with the exception of those rights which, in accordance with 
the Constitution and the law, are only enjoyed by citizens of the Republic of Serbia.224  

In Serbia, citizenship is explicitly mentioned as a protected ground in  Article 2, para. 1, 
of  the  LPD.  There  have  not  been  many  cases  in  relation  to  discrimination  based  on 
citizenship.  In  2016,  only  10  complaints  were  submitted  to  the  Commissioner  for  the 
Protection of Equality claiming discrimination based on citizenship.225  

In  one  case,  a  woman  submitted  a  complaint  against  the  local  municipality  as  she  was 
denied  funds  allocated  for  financing  the  process  of  artificial  insemination.  She  was 
refused the request for funds as she was married to a Greek citizen, who had a residence 
permit  for  Serbia,  on  the  territory  of  the  same  municipality.  The  Commissioner  found 
associative  discrimination  based  on  citizenship.  It  recommended  to  the  municipality  to 
take all necessary measures, without delay, to eliminate the effects of the discriminatory 

224  For example, Article 38, para. 2, of the Constitution stipulates that Serbian citizens may not be expelled or 

deprived of citizenship or the right to change it. In addition, Article 52, para. 1, states that every citizen who 
has reached their majority and working ability shall have the right to vote and be elected. Furthermore, 
Article 53 stipulates that citizens shall have the right to take part in the management of public affairs and to 
assume public service and functions under equal conditions.  

225  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 217. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
treatment of the complainant, and to  secure  funds in order to allow her to  exercise  her 
right to financial assistance for in vitro fertilization. This recommendation was fulfilled.226  

b) 

Relationship between nationality and ‘race or ethnic origin’ 

National minorities sometimes differ from ethnic minorities in that they represent part of 
the  nation  with  its  own  nation  state.  Thus,  the  former  Yugoslavia  officially  made  a 
distinction  between  nationalities  and  ethnic  groups.  This  division  has  been  blurred. 
However,  Article  2  of  the  Law  on  the  Protection  of  Rights  and  Freedoms  of  National 
Minorities defines national minorities as a group of citizens of Serbia who are sufficiently 
representative, although in a minority situation within the territory of Serbia, who belong 
to an indigenous group of the  population with a lasting and firm connection with Serbia 
and  possess  some  distinctive  features,  such  as  language,  national  or  ethnic  affiliation, 
origin or religion,  by means  of  which they differ from the majority of the population. In 
addition,  the  definition  goes  on  to  state  that  members  of  a  national  minority  should 
demonstrate concern about the preservation of their common identity, including culture, 
tradition, language or religion. 

Today,  discrimination  based  on  nationality  is  considered  to  be  discrimination  based  on 
citizenship, while discrimination based on ethnic origin relates to ethnic minorities whose 
culture, origin and lifestyle differs from the majority. Usually they are citizens, but if they 
are  not  citizens,  then  an  overlap  between  ‘nationality’  and  ‘ethnic  origin’  can  occur. 
However, this is a rather theoretical debate, as all these grounds are covered by Article 
2, para. 1, of the LPD, meaning citizenship, national affiliation and ethnic origin. In other 
words, nationality is an explicitly protected ground under the LPD, and the Commissioner 
for  the  Protection  of  Equality  has  an  explicit  mandate  to  deal  with  nationality 
discrimination.  

In Serbia, the ethnic minority which is considered to be most discriminated against is the 
Roma.  This  is  supported  by  the  latest  research  on  the  perceptions  of  citizens  towards 
discrimination  in  Serbia,  conducted  in  June  2016,227  where  23%  of  respondents  believe 
that the most discriminated group in Serbia is Roma. 

4.5  Work-related family benefits (Recital 22 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Benefits for married employees 

In  Serbia,  it  constitutes  unlawful  discrimination  in  national  law  if  an  employer  only 
provides  benefits  to  those  employees  who  are  married.  Article  2,  para.  1,  of  the  LPD 
prohibits discrimination based on family and marital status and the Constitution equates 
marriage and cohabitation, in accordance with the law (Article 62, para. 5).  

However,  Article  3,  para.  3  of  the  Family  Law  establishes  that  marriage  is  the 
cohabitation of a man and a woman, while cohabitation is defined in Article 4, para. 1, as 
‘a  more  permanent  cohabitation  of  a  man  and  a  woman,  between  whom  there  are  no 
obstacles  to  marriage’.  There  is  no  law  on  registered  partnerships,  notwithstanding  the 
Model  Law  on  Registered  Same-Sex  Partnerships  which  was  prepared  during  2013  by 
several NGOs and presented to the public in 2014. In the meantime, the media began to 
report news on the Model Law in a sensationalist manner and the Government withdrew 
from further negotiations, which have not yet been resumed. Therefore, in its report for 
2016,  the  Commissioner  calls  for  the  adoption  of  a  Law  on  Registered  Same-Sex 

226  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 139. 

227  Report on public opinion research: Izveštaj o istraživanju javnog mnjenja Odnos građana i građanki prema 

diskriminaciji u Srbiji [The attitude of citizens towards discrimination in the Republic of Serbia], 
Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, Belgrade, 2016. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Partnerships  in  accordance  with  Council  of  Europe  recommendations.228  In  other  words, 
the existing legislation recognises marriage only between opposite-sex couples. Although 
Article 2, para. 1, of the LPD prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, Article 
21 only states that sexual orientation is a private matter and that every person has the 
right  to  declare  their  sexual  orientation.  There  is  still  no  relevant  case-law  which  casts 
light on the scope of this provision. 

b) 

Benefits for employees with opposite-sex partners 

In  Serbia,  it  does  not  constitute  unlawful  discrimination  in  national  law  if  an  employer 
only  provides  benefits  to  those  employees  with  opposite-sex  partners,  as  many 
provisions of the Labour Law concerning certain family benefits require marital status or 
extramarital  community  which  is  considered  to  be  the  cohabitation  of  partners  of  the 
opposite sex.  

Although the LPD prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation (Article 2, para. 1), 
Article  21  limits  the  application  to  privacy,  stating  that  sexual  orientation  is  a  private 
matter  and  that  discriminatory  treatment  on  account  of  the  declaration  of  someone’s 
sexual orientation is prohibited. In other words, Article 21 does not provide any standing 
for combating discrimination in the area of benefits. On the other hand, Article 2, para. 1 
prohibits  any  unlawful  discrimination  based,  among  others,  on  sexual  orientation,  and 
someone can argue that this provision prohibits benefits provided only to employees with 
opposite-sex  partners.  Bearing  in  mind  the  current  case-law,  it  is  probable  that  the 
Commissioner for the Protection of Equality and judges will interpret the scope of Article 
21  and  Article  2,  para.  1,  in  relation  to  sexual  orientation  differently.  While  the 
Commissioner  would  claim  that  it  is  discriminatory,  judges  would  rather  say  that  the 
application of Article 21 is limited, and would not find discrimination. 

Therefore, a change to the existing legislation is necessary, as well as the introduction of 
the institution of registered partnerships. Another problem is  the general atmosphere in 
society  due  to  which  many  members  of  sexual  minorities  do  not  openly  reveal  their 
sexual orientation and therefore do not invoke this provision in practice.  

4.6  Health and safety (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) 

In  Serbia,  there  are  exceptions  in  relation  to  disability  and  health  and  safety  (Article 
7(2),  Directive  2000/78/EC).  The  LPD  provides  in  Article  16,  para.  3  that  undertaking 
protective measures towards certain categories of employees (such as women, pregnant 
women,  women  who  have  recently  given  birth,  parents,  minors  and  people  with 
disabilities) cannot be considered as discrimination. 

Article  12,  para.  1,  of  the  Labour  Law  states  that  an  employee  shall  have  the  right  to 
safety  and  protection  of  life  and  health  at  work.  According  to  Article  16,  para.  2, 
employers  are  obliged  to  provide  their  employees  with  working  conditions  which  ensure 
safety and the protection of life and health at work in conformity with the law and other 
regulations.  The  Law  further  prescribes  that  employees  are  entitled  to  safety  and  the 
protection  of  life  and  health  at  work  in  conformity  with  the  law  (Article  80).  Article  12, 
para.  4,  entitles  employees  with  disabilities  to  special  protection.  Article  22,  para.  2, 
establishes  that  provisions  relating  to  special  protection  of  people  with  disabilities  shall 
not  be  considered  as  discrimination.  Finally,  Article  101  prescribes  that  employers  are 
obliged  to  enable  employees  with  disabilities  to  perform  their  work  according  to  their 
remaining  working  capacity.  Employers  shall,  in  accordance  with  the  pension  and 
disability  insurance  regulations,  provide  appropriate  alternative  tasks  for  an  employee 
who is assessed to be at risk of becoming disabled by performing certain tasks. 

228  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 13. 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Article 12, para. 4, entitles employees under 18 and employees with disabilities to special 
protection. In addition, Article 22, para. 2, stipulates that provisions of the law, general 
acts  and  employment  contracts  relating  to  special  protection  and  assistance  for  specific 
categories  of  employees,  cannot  be  considered  to  be  discrimination.  Those  categories 
are: people with disabilities, women on leave from work due to pregnancy and childbirth 
(maternity leave), and on leave to look after a child (parental leave), and during special 
care  for  a  child  (in  the  case  of  a  child  requiring  special  care  due  to  serious  physical  or 
psychological need, where the parent, upon expiry of the maternity and paternity leave, 
is absent from work, or works half-time, at most until the child reaches the age of five). 
There  are  also  provisions  relating  to  special  rights  for  parents,  adoptive  parents, 
guardians  and  foster  parents.  Article  84  lists  jobs  which  are  prohibited  for  employees 
under  18.  It  also  protects  motherhood  (Articles  89-93a)  and  people  with  disabilities 
(Articles 101-102). 

4.7  Exceptions  related  to  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  age  (Article  6 

Directive 2000/78) 

4.7.1  Direct discrimination 

In Serbia, the LPD does not provide an exception for direct discrimination on the ground 
of age.  

a) 

Justification of direct discrimination on the ground of age 

In  Serbia,  Article  23,  para.  1,  of  the  LPD  prohibits  discrimination  against  individuals  on 
the ground of age and does not mention any exceptions. However, a possible justification 
for direct discrimination on the ground of age is provided in Article 14, which prescribes 
positive measures and  says that, ‘measures introduced for the purpose  of achieving full 
equality,  protection  and  progress  of  an  individual  or  a  group  of  persons  in  an  unequal 
position shall not be considered to constitute discrimination’. 

In  addition,  it  can  be  considered  that  a  genuine  and  occupational  requirement,  as 
established  in  Article  16,  para.  3,  can  justify  direct  discrimination  based  on  age.  The 
same provision is contained in the Labour Law in Article 21, para. 1. 

There  is  still  no  significant  case  law  on  this  ground  of  discrimination,  except  for  cases 
brought before the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality.  

In 2016, 75 complaints (or 11.8 %) submitted to the Commissioner for the Protection of 
Equality claimed age discrimination, compared to 11.3 % in 2014 and 9.4 % in 2015.229 
Therefore,  this  ground  of  discrimination  still  ranks  very  high  –  among  the  top  three 
grounds  in  2016.  More  of  the  complaints  concern  discrimination  against  children  (aged 
under  18)  than  discrimination  against  those  in  the  18-65  age  group  and  the  elderly 
(65+).230  Of  these  complaints,  23  concern  employment,  20  education  and  professional 
training  and  12  the  actions  of  public  authorities,  while  other  complaints  concern  the 
provision  of  public  services  and  health  protection.  As  in  2015,  some  complaints  were 
submitted  against  healthcare  institutions  which  set  age  conditions  for  specialisation  by 
doctors.231  

b) 

Permitted differences of treatment based on age 

229  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 217. 

230  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 104. 

231  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, pp. 104-107. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  Serbia,  national  law  permits  differences  in  treatment  based  on  age  for  any  activities 
within the material scope of Directive 2000/78/EC. Thus, Article 16, para. 3, of the LPD 
prescribes  that  different  treatment  is  permissible  on  account  of  the  specific  nature  of  a 
job, for which an individual’s specific age constitutes a genuine and decisive condition for 
performing  the  job,  if  the  objective  to  be  achieved  is  justified.  In  addition,  it  is 
permissible  to  provide  protective  measures  for  certain  categories  of  people,  such  as 
children. Furthermore, Article 23, para. 2, stipulates that the elderly constitute a specific, 
protected group. 

c) 

Fixing  of  ages  for  admission  or  entitlements  to  benefits  of  occupational  pension 
schemes 

In Serbia, there are no occupational pension schemes. 

4.7.2  Special  conditions  for  young  people,  older  workers  and  persons  with 

caring responsibilities  

In Serbia, there are no special conditions set by law for older or younger workers in order 
to  promote  their  vocational  integration,  or  for  people  with  caring  responsibilities  to 
ensure  their  protection.  However,  although  there  is  no  general-scope  law  which  sets 
special  conditions  for  these  groups,  it  does  not  mean  that  special  conditions  are  not 
established  at  a  local  level,  mostly  in  order  to  promote  the  employment  of  young 
people.232 

The  LPD  only  provides  in  Article  23,  para.  2,  that,  ‘Older  people  shall  have  the  right  to 
dignified living conditions, without discrimination, and especially the right to equal access 
and  protection  from  neglect  and  harassment  in  the  course  of  receiving  healthcare 
services and other public services’. The Labour Law protects young workers. Thus, Article 
84  prescribes  that  employees  younger  than  16  cannot  work  in  posts  which  require 
particularly hard physical work, exposure to harmful radiation or  materials which pose a 
risk  to  health.  Employees  between  the  ages  of  18  and  21  can  perform  such  hazardous 
tasks  only  if  a  medical  professional  determines  that  such  work  is  not  harmful  to  their 
health  (Article  85).  Employees  under  the  age  of  18  cannot  work  for  more  than  eight 
hours per day (a maximum of 35 hours per week) and cannot do overtime or night work, 
except for in some particular cases (Article 88). Certain safeguards are applicable in the 
case  of  pregnancy  and  early  motherhood  (Articles  89-93a).  The  Labour  Law  sets  some 
conditions for absence from work  for employees in the case of them needing to provide 
special care for a child with long-term illness or disabilities, or to provide special care for 
an adopted or foster child (Articles 96-100). In addition, the Labour Law protects people 
with disabilities (Articles 101-103). 

Certain  categories  of  workers  can,  exceptionally,  in  circumstances  and  under  conditions 
set out in the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance,233 be entitled to a pension (Article 
7).  Under  Article  42,  those  categories  are  police  officers,  some  categories  of  employees 
at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, members of the Security Information Agency, members 
of  the  Military  Security  Agency  and  Military  Intelligence  Agency;  employees  of  the 
Administration  for  the  execution  of  plenipotentiary  sanctions,  authorised  officials  of  the 
Tax Police, military personnel and other police officers.  

232  The basis for affirmative measures is presented in the Law on Youth, Official Gazette of the Republic of 

Serbia, no. 50/2011, 8 July 2011. 

233  Serbia, Law on Pension and Disability Insurance, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 34/2003, 
64/2004 - decision CC, 84/2004 – other law, 85/2005, 101/2005 – other law, 63/2006 - decision CC, 
5/2009, 107/2009, 101/2010, 93/2012, 62/2013, 108/2013, 75/2014, 142/2014, 2 April 2003. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.7.3  Minimum and maximum age requirements 

In  Serbia,  there  are  no  exceptions  permitting  minimum  and/or  maximum  age 
requirements  in  relation  to  access  to  employment  (notably  in  the  public  sector)  and 
training. 

4.7.4  Retirement  

a) 

State pension age 

In  Serbia,  the  state  pension  age  at  which  individuals  must  begin  to  collect  their  state 
pensions  is  65.  However,  an  employee  can  decide  to  submit  a  request  for  early 
retirement.  

If an individual wishes to work longer, the pension cannot be deferred, except for certain 
jobs  (doctors  or  university  professors),  when  it  can  be  deferred  for  an  additional  three 
years (until the individual reaches 68). 

An individual cannot collect a pension and still work. 

According to Article 19 a) of the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance, men can retire 
at the age of 65 and with a minimum of 15 years of pension insurance contributions, and 
can  submit  a  request  for  early  retirement  at  the  age  of  55  and  with  a  minimum  of  40 
years of pension insurance. Women can retire when they reach the age of 60 years and 
six  months234  and  have  a  minimum  of  15  years  of  pension  insurance  (and  can  request 
early  retirement  at  54  years  and  four  months  and  with  36  years  and  four  months  of 
pension insurance). However, the state pension age is rising, as the minimum age limit is 
extended  each  year,  and  by  2023  men  will  only  be  able  to  submit  a  request  for  early 
retirement at the age  of  58 and with 40 years of  contributions, compared to 58 and 38 
years  of contributions for  women. Both sexes  retire  after 45  years of pension insurance 
contributions, no matter what their age.  

However,  in  practice,  some  women  are  forced  to  retire  when  they  reach  the  age  of  60 
years and six months, although it is their right to choose if they want to retire, or to work 
until 65.  

b)  Occupational pension schemes 

In  Serbia,  it  is  not  possible  to  receive  payment  from  any  employer-funded  pension 
arrangements, since occupational pension schemes are not recognised as such in Serbia.  
The only system that exists is the mandatory public pension system.235 

c) 

State imposed mandatory retirement ages 

In  Serbia,  there  is  a  state-imposed  mandatory  retirement  age  which  is  generally 
applicable. Thus, according to Article 19 of the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance, 
the retirement age is 65 years, with a minimum of 15 years of pension contributions, or 
after 45 years of contributions. 

When an employee reaches 65, there is no possibility for them to continue to work and to 
defer their pension. However, the retiree can continue to work in the form of a fixed-term 

234  The retirement age for women will increase each year until 2031, when it will reach 64 years and nine 

months, and in 2032 it will be 65. 

235  However, voluntary pension savings are also possible, although the introduction of mandatory private funds 
has been dismissed. See the Law on Voluntary Pension Funds and Pension Plans (Zakon o dobrovoljnim 
penzijskim fondovima i penzijskim planovima), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 85/2005 and 
31/2011, 13 October 2005. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
service contract. In addition, in the public sector, the mandatory retirement age for both 
sexes is 65. There is a possibility of extending this period for an additional three years in 
higher education for university professors and doctors. 

d) 

Retirement ages imposed by employers 

In  Serbia,  national  law  does  not  permit  employers  to  set  retirement  ages  (or  ages  at 
which  the  termination  of  an  employment  contract  is  possible)  by  contract  and/or 
collective bargaining and/or unilaterally. 

e) 

Employment rights applicable to all workers irrespective of age 

The  Labour  Law  protects  employees  against  dismissal  and  applies  to  all  workers 
irrespective  of  age,  until  they  reach  the  mandatory  retirement  age.  Article  20  prohibits 
any  discrimination  in  relation  to  dismissal.  However,  Article  187  protects  employees 
during pregnancy, maternity leave, absence from work for childcare and leave for special 
childcare, when an employer cannot terminate the contract of employment. 

f) 

Compliance of national law with CJEU case law 

In  Serbia,  national  legislation  is  in  line  with  the  CJEU  case  law  on  age  regarding 
compulsory  retirement.  There  is  no  possibility  of  working  beyond  pensionable  age, 
although  a  retired  person  can  perform  certain  jobs  on  the  basis  of  service  contracts. 
Although  there  are  differences  in  pensionable  age  between  male  and  female  workers, 
they  both  retire  at  65,  so  the  earlier  pension  is  a  possibility,  not  a  requirement.  The 
automatic  termination  of  employment  contracts  for  employees  who  meet  the  conditions 
as  regards  age  and  minimum  years  of  service  during  which  pension  contributions  were 
paid has been a feature of employment law in many Member States and is widely used in 
employment relationships. 

It  is  a  mechanism  which  is  based  on  a  balance  which  must  be  struck  between  political, 
economic,  social,  demographic  and/or  budgetary  considerations  and  the  choice  to  be 
made  between  prolonging  people’s  working  lives  or,  conversely,  providing  for  early 
retirement. This is why the retirement age for women will be higher each year until 2031 
in  Serbia  when  it  will  reach  64  years  and  nine  months,  with  the  objective  of  equalising 
the required conditions for both sexes. However, there is an exception allowing university 
professors to work  for three more  years (until the age of 68) if they receive permission 
from  their  respective  departments,  the  faculty  council  and  the  university.  The  same 
exception applies to doctors. 

4.7.5  Redundancy 

a) 

Age and seniority taken into account for redundancy selection 

In  Serbia,  national  law  permits  age  or  seniority  to  be  taken  into  account  in  selecting 
workers  for  redundancy.  Section  XI  of  the  Labour  Law  regulates  redundancy  and 
stipulates in Article 155 that the solution to finding redundancy plans has to include the 
following  information:  the  reasons  for  the  work  of  the  employees  no  longer  being 
needed;  the  total  number  of  employees  with  the  employer;  the  number,  professional 
qualification structure, age and years of insurance contributions of redundant employees, 
and  the  jobs  they  perform;  the  criteria  for  establishing  the  redundancy;  measures  for 
finding  alternative  employment:  transfer  to  other  work  assignments,  employment  with 
another employer, retraining or additional training, part-time work, but not shorter than 
half a full-time position, and other measures; the means for resolving the socio-economic 
status of redundant employees; and the time limit within which the employment contract 
will be terminated. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
b) 

Age taken into account for redundancy compensation 

In Serbia, national law provides compensation for redundancy. This is not affected by the 
age  of  the  worker.  Financial  compensation  is  calculated  from  the  first  day  of  insurance 
until  the  termination  of  insurance,  and  the  total  amount  depends  on  the  number  of 
insurance years. In other words, severance pay for redundancy dismissal is different for a 
worker  with  one  year  of  tenure,  five  years  of  tenure,  10  years  of  tenure  or  more. 
However,  it  can  indirectly  have  a  different  impact  on  younger  age  groups  which  mostly 
have  fewer  years  of  tenure  and,  thus  receive  a  lower  amount  of  redundancy 
compensation. 

4.8  Public  security,  public  order,  criminal  offences,  protection  of  health, 
protection  of  the  rights  and  freedoms  of  others  (Article  2(5),  Directive 
2000/78) 

In Serbia, national anti-discrimination law does not include exceptions which seek to rely 
on Article 2, para. 5, of the Employment Equality Directive. 

The  Constitution  of  Serbia  prescribes  that  some  human  rights  may  be  restricted  by  the 
law  if  the  Constitution  permits  such  a  restriction  and  for  the  purpose  allowed  by  the 
Constitution, to the extent necessary to meet the constitutional purpose of the restriction 
in  a  democratic  society  and  without  encroaching  upon  the  substance  of  the  relevant 
guaranteed  right  (Article  20,  para.  1).  This  section  of  the  Constitution  relies  on  the 
European  Convention  on  Human  Rights.  However,  the  Constitution  only  permits  a 
restriction in relation to special measures, introduced in order to achieve full equality of 
individuals or groups of individuals in a substantially unequal position compared to other 
citizens. Other restrictions of the principle of equality are not allowed by the Constitution.  

4.9  Any other exceptions 

In  Serbia,  no  other  exceptions  to  the  prohibition  of  discrimination  (on  any  ground)  are 
provided in national law. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 

POSITIVE  ACTION  (Article  5  Directive  2000/43,  Article  7  Directive 
2000/78) 

a) 

Scope for positive action measures 

In  Serbia,  positive  action  in  respect  of  racial  and  ethnic  origin,  religion  and  belief, 
disability, age and sexual orientation is permitted in national law.  

Article  21,  para.  4,  of  the  Constitution  recognises  that  special  measures,  introduced  in 
order  to  achieve  full  equality  of  individuals  or  groups  of  individuals  in  a  substantially 
unequal position compared to other citizens, shall not be deemed to be discrimination.  

Article 14 of the LPD also prescribes that measures which are introduced for the purpose 
of  achieving  the  full  equality,  protection  and  progress  of  an  individual  or  a  group  of 
people in an unequal position shall not be considered to constitute discrimination.  

The LPDPD provides that there is no discrimination if a provision of a law, a regulation, a 
decision  or  a  special  measure  was  adopted  with  the  aim  of  improving  the  situation  of 
people  with  disabilities,  their  family  members  and  associations  of  persons  with 
disabilities, when this special support is necessary in order to ensure they can enjoy and 
exercise their rights under the same conditions as the general population (Article 8, para. 
1).  Furthermore,  a  ‘decision  or  the  retention  of  existing  laws  or  measures  aimed  at 
eliminating  or  repairing  the  adverse  situation  of  people  with  disabilities  who  are  given 
special support’ is not considered to be discrimination either (Article 8, para. 2).  

b)  Main positive action measures in place at national level 

In Serbia, there are no positive measures related to migrants. 

Positive measures in relation to education for vulnerable ethnic  groups (primarily Roma) 
– With the aim  of providing conditions for the  promotion  of and greater inclusion in the 
process of education and professional training, the Gender Equality Act (GEA) prescribes 
that the public authorities in charge of education can undertake special measures for the 
inclusion of pupils or groups of pupils who, because of their culture, tradition and socio-
economic  conditions,  leave  school  prematurely  (Article  33,  para.  1).236  Measures  of 
special  support  for  pupils  or  groups  of  pupils  in  their  transition  from  lower  to  higher 
educational  levels  can  also  be  undertaken,  namely,  for  the  continuation  of  their 
education.  The  public  authorities  in  charge  of  education  shall  establish  special  teaching 
curricula  for  the  return  of  pupils  to  schools  and  other  educational  institutions  –  ‘broad 
social policy measures’. 

Positive  measures  for  people  with  disabilities  in  the  area  of  employment  –  Article  24  of 
the  Law  on  Professional  Rehabilitation  and  Employment  of  Persons  with  Disabilities 
establishes a duty for employers with at least 20 employees to employ a certain number 
of people with disabilities. An employer with 20 to 49 employees is obliged to employ one 
person with disabilities (Article 24, para. 2). An employer  with 50 or more employees is 
obliged to employ at least two people with disabilities and one more for every additional 
50 employees (Article 24, para. 3). This obligation is not imposed on a newly established 
employer for a period of 24 months from the day of the establishment of the business.  

However,  according  to  Article  26,  an  employer  can  be  relieved  of  this  obligation  if  they 
pay a sum of at least 50 % of the average salary per employee for every  person with a 

236  Serbia, Gender Equality Act (Zakon o ravnopravnosti polova), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 
104/2009, 16 December 2009. This duty is included in the GEA, as the problem of early school drop-out is 
primarily perceived to be a gender issue, due to the fact that the drop-out rate is higher among girls, 
particularly Roma girls. However, the percentage of early school drop-outs among Roma boys is also very 
high, and therefore, it would be more logical to include this duty in the LPD. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
disability whom they do not employ. This amount is paid to the budget of the Republic of 
Serbia  for  the  fund  for  the  professional  rehabilitation  and  employment  of  people  with 
disabilities.237  In  addition,  an  employer  receives  a  wage  subsidy  for  a  duration  of  12 
months for an employee with disabilities and without work experience who is hired for an 
indefinite period of time. This subsidy is equivalent to 75 % of the salary costs associated 
with contributions for mandatory social insurance, but not more than the minimum wage 
determined in accordance with the regulations - ‘quotas’, ‘broad policy measures’. 

Positive measures for national minorities, particularly Roma – The Law on the Protection 
of  National  Minorities  prescribes  that  authorities  shall  adopt  legal  rules,  individual  legal 
acts  and  measures  with  the  aim  of  securing  full  and  effective  equality  for  people 
belonging to national minorities (Article 4, para. 1). Article 4, para. 2, sets an obligation 
on  authorities  to  undertake  positive  measures  with  the  aim  of  improving  the  status  of 
Roma, which won’t be considered as discrimination. These measures apply, in particular, 
to the parliamentary sphere, as the Law on the Election of MPs238 stipulates in Article 81, 
para.  2,  that  the  threshold  of  5 %  does  not  apply  to  parties  and  coalitions  of  parties  of 
national minorities. Their list must win 0.4 % of the total votes in order to secure its first 
MP seat – ‘broad policy measures’. 

Positive  measures  for  national  minorities,  particularly  Roma  –  The  Law  on  the 
Fundamentals  of  the  Education  System,239  in  Article  98,  establishes  that  vulnerable 
children  can  enrol  in  primary  school  without  a  health  certificate  and  pre-school 
programme  certificate  and  can  also  enrol  after  the  prescribed  admission  period. 
Furthermore, Article 132 provides standing for joint action by schools and local partners 
to  identify  Roma  pupils  interested  in  attending  secondary  school.  The  Ministry  of 
Education’s  enrolment  commission  allocates  children  to  schools,  based  on  test  results 
and their wishes. Roma pupils are given an additional 30 points on top of their test score 
in  order  to  help  them  to  enrol  in  secondary  schools.  If  a  Roma  pupil  wants  to  enrol  in 
higher  education  and  does  not  pass  the  entry  exam,  the  Ministry  of  Education 
recommends  that  the  higher  education  institution  cover  the  tuition  fees,  but  this 
recommendation  is  not  compulsory.  These  measures  are  further  supported  in  the 
Strategy for the Social Inclusion  of Roma in the Republic of Serbia for the period 2016-
2025, which requires the introduction of measures to support admissions into secondary 
schools for Roma pupils. It also foresees the adoption of the Rulebook on the admission 
of  Roma  students  into  high  schools,  which  also  defines  the  means  of  monitoring  the 
effects  of  positive  measures  on  the  education  of  the  Roma  population  –  ‘broad  policy 
measures’.  

Positive  measures  for  Roma  –  the  Strategy  for  the  Social  Inclusion  of  Roma  in  the 
Republic of Serbia for the period 2016-2025 stipulates that local governments will adopt 
regulations on the improvement of housing conditions for Roma and secure funding from 
the budget to implement these measures. In addition, local authorities shall undertake all 
measures to establish whether there are any possibilities of legalising existing residential 
structures in sustainable informal settlements – ‘broad policy measures’.  

237  This obligation is defined in the Regulation on the monitoring of the execution of duties on the employment 
of persons with disabilities and the method of proving the execution of these obligations (Pravilnik o načinu 
praćenja izvršavanja obaveze zapošljavanja osoba sa invaliditetomi načinu dokazivanja izvršavanja te 
obaveze) Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 33/2010, 48/2010-corr., and 113/2013. 

238  Serbia, Law on the Elections of MPs (Zakon o izboru narodnih poslanika), Official Gazette of the Republic of 
Serbia, no. 35/2000, 57/2003 - decision CC, 72/2003, 75/2003 – corr, 18/2004, 101/2005, 85/2005 – 
other law, 104/2009, 28/2011 – decision CC 36/2011, 10 October 2000. 

239  Serbia, Law on the Fundamentals of the Education System (Zakon o osnovama sistema 

obrazovanja i vaspitanja), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 72/09, 52/2011, 55/2013, 
35/2015authentic interpretation, 68/2015, 62/2016 – CC decision, 31 August 2009. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6 

REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT  

6.1  Judicial  and/or  administrative  procedures  (Article  7  Directive  2000/43, 

Article 9 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Available procedures for enforcing the principle of equal treatment 

In  Serbia,  the  following  procedures  exist  for  enforcing  the  principle  of  equal  treatment 
(judicial/ administrative/alternative dispute resolution such as mediation).  

Civil  procedure  -  Civil  proceedings  in  discrimination  cases  are  regulated  by  three  anti-
discrimination  laws  (LPD,  LPDPD  and  GEA).  The  general  rule  is  that  provisions  from 
general  litigation  apply  (which  are  enshrined  in  the  Civil  Procedure  Code)  unless  it  is 
explicitly  regulated  differently  (lex  specialis).  However,  it  was  necessary  to  create  a 
special  procedure  for  discrimination  cases  as  general  litigation  is  not  adapted  to  the 
specific content and particularities of the proceedings in discrimination cases, nor does it 
secure the provision of legal protection that is of satisfactory quality. A special civil action 
is  designed  to  ensure  the  provision  of  effective  and  efficient  civil  protection  from 
discrimination  which  is  in  accordance  with  international  and  European  standards  in  this 
area. 

The  LPDPD  establishes  specific  procedural  provisions  in  order  to  enhance  the  court 
procedure  in  cases  of  discrimination  against  people  with  disabilities.  These  provisions 
modify the provisions  which  regulate the general civil procedure. Firstly, apart from the 
local court of general jurisdiction, the court situated in the area where the complainant is 
domiciled  or  has  temporary  residence  shall  also  have  jurisdiction  over  the  proceedings 
(Article 41). The complainant can request:  

- 
- 
- 
- 

court prohibition of further discriminatory behaviour; 
remedy actions to remove the consequences of discriminatory behaviour; 
the court’s confirmation that an action or behaviour is discriminatory; and 
compensation 
discriminatory behaviour.240  

for  pecuniary  and  non-pecuniary  damages 

incurred  due  to 

Furthermore,  monetary  fines  and  criminal  offences  apply  to  individuals  and  entities  for 
the violation of provisions prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities.  

Article  44  provides  that  revision,  a  special  appellate  review  for  legal  questions  and 
serious  breaches  of  procedure,  is  always  available  in  cases  of  discrimination  (no  time 
limit).  This  law  allows  temporary  measures  at  the  request  of  the  complainant,  when 
initiating  a  lawsuit,  in  the  course  of  the  proceedings  and  after  the  termination  of  the 
proceedings,  until  the  court  decision  is  enforced.  The  court  is  allowed  to  pass  a 
temporary  measure  in  order  to  prevent  discriminatory  treatment,  with  a  view  to 
eliminating  the  risk  of  violence  or  major  irreparable  damage.241  The  court  is  obliged  to 
decide  on  a  request  to  pass  a  temporary  measure  within  48  hours  of  receiving  the 
request. However, the LPDPD does not recognise a reversal of the burden of proof. 

The  LPD  also  sets  out  the  procedure  for  initiating  lawsuits  in  cases  of  discrimination 
which can be initiated by anyone who claims to  have suffered discriminatory treatment. 
It  includes  the  same  provisions  in  relation  to  the  court’s  jurisdiction  for  victims  of 
discrimination and revision as the LPDPD. The LPD also recognises temporary measures, 

240  In this complaint, the rules in the Law on Contracts and Torts applies, including the statute of limitations 
(Article 376). See Law on Contracts and Torts (Zakon o obligacionim odnosima), Official gazette of SFRY, 
no. 29/1978, 39/1985, 45/1989 - CCY, 57/1989, Official gazette of SRY, no. 31/1993, 22/1999, 23/1999, 
35/1999, 44/1999, Official gazette of SCG, no. 1/2003 – Constitutional Charter, 1 July 1978. 

241  A request to pass a temporary measure must prove the necessity of doing so in order to eliminate the risk 

of violence, use of force, or irreparable damage (Article 45, para. 2). 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
although the court  must decide about  the  request not within 48 hours, but within three 
days.  It  also  provides  several  positive  solutions  to  protect  victims  of  discrimination. 
Firstly,  it  provides  that  the  proceedings  will  be  conducted  swiftly  (Article  41,  para.  3). 
Secondly,  Article  45  of  the  LPD  shifts  the  burden  of  proof  from  the  complainant  to  the 
respondent  in  the  following  way.  If  the  complainant  proves  the  likelihood  of  the 
defendant’s having committed an act of discrimination, the burden of providing evidence 
that no violation of the principle of equality has occurred will fall on the defendant. This 
means  that  the  complainant  must  prove  to  a  reasonable  degree  of  likelihood  that  the 
defendant committed an act of discrimination. If they succeed in this, the defendant has 
a duty to prove that the act was not a violation of the principle of equality. 

The  provisions  of  the  GEA  go  further  than  those  mentioned  in  the  other  two  anti-
discrimination laws in order to ensure efficiency, such as time limits for certain legal acts, 
provisions on the collection of data on cases and release from prior payment of litigation 
costs  until  the  case  is  decided.  These  additional  measures  which  are  envisaged  for 
gender have not been envisaged for the other protected grounds. 

Civil litigation with advocacy element - Under Article 46 of the LPD, the Commissioner for 
the Protection of Equality can initiate lawsuits. The Commissioner decides in which cases 
they  will  file  a  claim,  taking  into  account  whether  it  is  a  case  of  strategic  litigation;  in 
other  words  a  case  of  frequent  and  widespread  discrimination in  respect  of  which  there 
are good prospects for success (so far litigation has been initiated 13 times, and no new 
strategic  litigation  was  initiated  in  2015  or  2016).242  The  litigation  proceedings  are 
initiated  and  conducted  in  the  general  public  interest,  in  order  to  contribute  to  the 
consistent  implementation  of  legislation  and  improvement  of  legal  practice,  to  further 
encourage victims of discrimination to initiate anti-discrimination litigation, to uphold the 
rule of law and to contribute to the improvement of access to justice. 

Labour  dispute  –  As  the  Labour  Law  prohibits  discrimination  in  Articles  18-20,  an 
individual  can  decide  to  initiate  a  labour  dispute  if  discrimination  occurs  in  the  area  of 
employment.  An  employee  has  the  choice  to  initiate  a  labour  dispute  or  an  anti-
discrimination  proceeding,  which  can  be  initiated  even  if  the  labour  dispute  is  not 
complete. 

The  Civil  Code  governs  the  rules  on  proceedings  in  labour  law  disputes  in  order  to 
provide adequate protection. Jurisdiction in such cases, in addition to the court of general 
territorial jurisdiction for the respondent, lies with the court on whose territory the work 
is being performed or was performed, if the complainant in a labour-related dispute is an 
employee (Article  60).  This procedure is  regulated by  several articles (436-441). Article 
438 prescribes that in labour-related litigation, and in particular prior to determining time 
limits and scheduling hearings, the court shall always take due account  of the necessity 
of resolving labour disputes swiftly. In the course of the proceedings, Article 439 provides 
that the court may also ex officio order temporary measures to be applied in enforcement 
proceedings  for  the  prevention  of  violent  acts  or  the  alleviation  of  irreparable  damage. 
The court shall issue a ruling on the temporary measures at the request of a party within 
a  time  limit  of  eight  days  from  the  date  of  the  request  being  submitted.  No  specific 
appeal  shall  be  permitted  against  a  ruling  of  a  court  on  injunctions.  In  addition,  in  a 
judgment  ordering  the  performance  of  a  specific  obligation,  the  court  will  determine  a 
time  limit  of  eight  days  for  its  execution  (Article  439).  An  appeal  may  be  submitted 
within  a  time  limit  of  eight  days  (Article  440).  Finally,  a  review  shall  be  allowed  in 
litigation  pertaining  to  labour  disputes  on  employment,  the  course  of  employment  and 
termination  of  employment  (Article  441).  The  amendments  from  2014  provide  a  new 
rule:  if,  during  proceedings  concerning  illegal  termination,  the  court  determines  that 
there  were  grounds  for  termination,  but  the  employer  has  not  complied  with  the 

242  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2016), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2015, Belgrade, p. 171. 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
procedure, the court shall reject the employee’s request to return to work and in terms of 
damages they will be awarded the equivalent of six monthly salaries. 

Mediation  -  Тhe  Law  on  the  Peaceful  Resolution  of  Labour  Disputes243  prescribes  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  National  Agency  for  the  Peaceful  Resolution  of  Labour  Disputes  in 
procedures in both individual and collective disputes. This includes conciliation, mediation 
and,  in  fewer  cases,  arbitration.  The  law  distinguishes  between  individual  and  collective 
labour  disputes.  Collective  labour  disputes  are,  for  example,  disputes  about  collective 
agreements,  unions  and  strikes.  On  the  other  hand,  individual  labour  disputes  are 
disputes about minimum wages, termination of employment, payout of a minimum wage, 
as well as discrimination and bullying (Article 3). 

Mediation  is  also  prescribed  by  the  Law  on  Mediation,244  which  was  adopted  on  31  May 
2014  and  came  into  force  on  1  January  2015.  The  adoption  of  this  law  made  some 
improvements  and  advancements  to  the  existing  system,  which  dates  from  2005,  and 
brings changes in terms of refinement and development of existing solutions which have 
proven  inefficient  in  practice.  The  basic  principles  of  mediation  are  that  it  should  be 
conducted on a voluntary basis, in a procedure with strictly personal participation by the 
parties  where  the  equal  treatment  of  the  parties,  privacy  of  procedure,  confidentiality, 
neutrality,  urgency  and  the  prohibition  of  the  use  of  evidence  in  other  proceedings  are 
guaranteed.  Agreement  in  the  mediation  procedure  is  achieved  with  the  assistance  of 
mediators  who  are  appointed  by  and  registered  with  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  Public 
Administration.  The  legal  effectiveness  of  the  agreement  reached  in  the  mediation 
procedure is equal to that of a court decision and the agreement is enforceable  through 
enforcement  proceedings.  Initiating  mediation  causes  an  interruption  in  the  running  of 
the statute of limitation for a period of 60 days in a court proceeding.  

The  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  is  also  entitled,  but  not  obliged,  to 
suggest or recommend mediation after an assessment of whether the case is suitable for 
mediation. On the other hand, the Commissioner is required to recommend mediation to 
the parties before taking the first action in the proceedings under the complaint. If both 
parties  accept  mediation,  the  complaint  procedure  is  suspended  until  the  end  of  the 
mediation  process.  If  the  parties  reach  an  agreement,  the  procedure  is  completed, 
whereas  if  there  has  been  no  agreement  reached  through  the  mediation  process,  the 
complaint procedure before the Commissioner is continued. 

In  2012,  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  established  a  working  group 
which  prepared  a  mediation  model  adjusted  to  the  characteristics  of  discrimination 
cases.245  This  form  of  mediation  is  based  on  the  concept  of  restorative  justice  and 
contains  specific  criteria  and  the  manner  of  selecting  cases  suitable  for  mediation. 
Therefore,  an  analysis  must  first  be  carried  out  as  to  whether  the  case  is  suitable  for  a 
strategic  lawsuit,  as  strategically  important  cases  of  discrimination  should  be  submitted 
to the court. In addition, the principle of the mediator’s neutrality has been redefined, in 
the sense that the mediator must not be morally neutral towards discrimination itself, but 
must quite clearly show that it is morally unacceptable. 

The mediation procedure is conducted by a mediator appointed by an authorised official 
of the Commissioner, from a list of authorised mediators. Only qualified persons, who are 
not  employed  by  the  Commissioner,  can  be  included  in  the  list  of  mediators,  provided 
they  meet  the  criteria  and  closely  defined  requirements  established  by  the 
Commissioner. 

243  Serbia, Law on the Peaceful Resolution of Labour Disputes (Zakon o mirnom rešavanju radnih sporova), 

Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 125/2004, 104/2009, 22 November 2004. 

244  Serbia, Law on Mediation (Zakon o posredovanju u rešavanju sporova), Official Gazette of the Republic of 

Serbia, no. 55/2014, 23 May 2014. 

245  Commissioner for Protection of Equality (2013), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for Protection of 

Equality for 2012, Belgrade, p. 90. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
During 2012, the first training programme was conducted and successfully completed by 
22 people.246 In 2013, the list was extended to an additional 17 people, making a total of 
39  mediators,  which  is  still  valid.  During  2013-2015,  the  Commissioner  organised 
training  and  published  a  handbook  for  mediators  for  conducting  mediation  in 
discriminating  cases,  as  well  as  training  for  employees  in  order  to  recognise 
discrimination cases suitable for mediation.247  

In 2015, mediation was offered and accepted for the first time in two cases. In one case, 
the  complainant  claimed  that  a  local  newspaper  published  a  story  on  its  website  which 
discriminated  against  and  humiliated  him  for  his  extremely  short  stature.  In  another 
case, a complainant considered that  some comments posted on the Facebook page of a 
legal entity producing traditional souvenirs were offensive towards Bosniaks and Muslims. 
The mediation was successfully concluded in both cases.248 However, in 2016, there were 
no cases of mediation. 

Misdemeanour  procedure  –  This  procedure  is  regulated  by  a  special  law.249  It  can  be 
initiated  by  certain  bodies  (administrative  bodies,  authorised 
inspectors,  public 
prosecutors, etc.).  Inspectors  can initiate  a misdemeanour procedure  in order to  secure 
the  legality  and  safe  operation  and  practices  of  public  authorities  (they  can  also  review 
documents,  take  statements,  see  the  premises,  order  enforcement  measures,  notify 
other  authorities,  etc.  In  addition,  this  procedure  can  be  initiated  by  the  individual  who 
was discriminated against. The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality can initiate a 
misdemeanour notice, but cannot punish a discriminator with a fine directly. In 2016, the 
Commissioner  issued  one  misdemeanour  charge  against  two  people  who,  several  days 
before  the  Gay  Pride  march,  unfurled  a  banner  in  a  city  centre  with  a  message  to 
members of the LGBT community that they are undesirable and sinful250 The LPD makes 
provision for several misdemeanours, regulated in 11 articles (Articles 50-60). 

Criminal  procedure  –  The  criminal  law  is  set  out  in  the  Criminal  Code  which  contains 
several provisions relating to discrimination: 

- 

- 
- 

- 

- 

Article  128  prescribes  a  violation  of  equality.  In  2016,  an  amendment  to  the 
criminal Code expanded the prohibited grounds of discrimination to cover disability, 
sexual orientation and gender identity251 
Article 129 prescribes the violation of the right to use a language or alphabet; 
Article  317  establishes  as  a  criminal  offence  the  instigation  or  exacerbation  of 
ethnic, racial and religious hatred or intolerance; 
Article  344a  prohibits  the  instigation  of  ethnic,  racial  and  religious  or  other  hatred 
or  intolerance  by  means  of  actions  or  slogans  at  sporting  events  or  public 
gatherings; 
Article  387  prohibits  propagation  of  the  idea  of  racial  superiority  or  racial 
intolerance or discrimination. 

246  Commissioner for Protection of Equality (2013), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for Protection of 

Equality for 2012, Belgrade, p. 92. 

247  Commissioner for Protection of Equality (2013), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for Protection of 

Equality for 2012, Belgrade, p. 16. 

248  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2016), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2015, Belgrade, p. 73. 

249  Serbia, Law on Misdemeanours (Zakon o prekršajima), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 

65/2013, 13/2016, 25 July 2013. 

250  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 6. 

251  Serbia, Article 9 of the Amendments to the criminal Code (Zakon o izmenama i dopunama Krivicnog 

zakonika), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 94/2016, 24 November 2016. Other prohibited 
grounds are: national or ethnic origin, race or religion, political or other opinion, sex, language, education, 
social status, social origin, property and other personal characteristics. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  2016,  three  criminal  charges  were  submitted  by  the  Commissioner.252  The  first  case 
concerns  a  Roma  individual  who  was  HIV  positive  and  whose  family  was  exposed  to 
violence and the destruction of their home by other villagers. The second case concerns a 
discriminatory  text  and  comments  that  were  posted  online  against  sexual  minorities, 
calling for violence against people of different sexual orientation and gender identity. The 
third  case  relates  to  an  older  person  who  was  placed  in  a  home  for  the  elderly  against 
her  will.  The  Commissioner  underlined  that  it  is  a  widespread  practice  in  Serbia,  which 
leads  to  elder  abuse  and  deprivation  of  people’s  right  to  freely  decide  on  their  lifestyle, 
which  also  leads  to  restrictions  or  deprivation  of  their  freedom  of  movement  and 
restriction of their free disposal of finances.253  

By means of Article 54a of the Criminal Code, racial, religious, national, ethnic and sexual 
hatred are considered to be aggravating circumstances. However, this is rarely applied in 
practice. 

Complaint  procedure  –  This  procedure  before  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of 
Equality is a specific procedure, which has the characteristics of a special administrative 
procedure. Article 40, para. 4, of the LPD expressly stipulates that the procedure before 
the  Commissioner  shall  be  conducted  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  the  Law  on  General 
Administrative  Procedure.254  The  procedure  for  submitting  a  complaint  is  regulated  in 
Articles 35 to 40. A complaint must be forwarded within 15 days of its submission to the 
alleged perpetrator of the violation who has 15 days to respond to it. The Commissioner 
must  give  an  opinion  on  whether  there  has  been  a  violation  of  the  prohibition  of 
discrimination  within  90  days  of  the  day  of  receiving  a  complaint,  and  must  inform  the 
individual  who  submitted  the  complaint  and  the  individual  against  whom  the  complaint 
was  submitted.  If the Commissioner finds a  violation,  they  will issue a recommendation 
to  the  individual  against  whom  the  complaint  was  submitted,  suggesting  a  means  of 
redressing  the  violation  in  question.  The  individual  to  whom  the  recommendation  is 
addressed is obliged to act upon it and to redress the violation in question within 30 days 
of  receipt  of  the  recommendation.  The  individual  must  inform  the  Commissioner  of  the 
measures taken. However, if the individual fails to redress the violation in question within 
30  days,  the  Commissioner  may  inform  the  public  in  the  press  and  online.  If  the 
discriminator  fails  to  comply  with  the  recommendation,  the  individual(s)  exposed  to  the 
discriminatory act can decide to initiate a lawsuit, or the Commissioner for the Protection 
of  Equality  can  initiate  a  lawsuit  in  a  case  of  strategic  litigation.  The  Commissioner  can 
also initiate a misdemeanour notice or a criminal charge. 

In  2016,  626  complaints  were  submitted  to  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of 
Equality.255 

b) 

Barriers and other deterrents faced by litigants seeking redress 

There  is  a  certain  overlap  between  the  three  anti-discrimination  laws,  as  disability  and 
gender  discrimination  can  be  challenged  under  the  general  and  specific  law  on 
discrimination.  However,  it  seems  that  discrimination  based  on  disability  has  thus  far 
mostly  been  challenged  under  the  specific  law,  while  cases  based  on  gender 
discrimination are mostly challenged under the LPD, although the GEA is better equipped 
to  protect  the  victim  of  discrimination.  The  jurisdiction  for  cases  of  discrimination  was 

252  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 176. 

253 Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p.p. 163-164. 

254  Serbia, Law on General Administrative Procedure (Zakon o opštem upravnom postupku), Official Gazette of 

the Republic of Serbia, no. 18/2016, 9 March 2016. The Law will start to apply from 1 June 2017. 

255  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular Annual Report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 6. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
transferred  in  January  2014  from  the  basic  to  the  higher  courts256  and  some  relevant 
jurisprudence is still developing. In addition, there is an overlap between the LPD and the 
Labour Law and it is not always clear to judges that in a case of discrimination, even if 
the procedure was initiated by the Labour Law, more favourable provisions enshrined in 
the LPD should be applied (e.g. that the procedure is urgent).  

Several  problems  have  been  identified  in  practice  and  were  also  documented  in  an 
analysis  of  the  conformity  of  the  LPD  with  EU  legislation  and  its  current  application  in 
Serbia,  conducted  in  March  2016.257  Firstly,  at  the  beginning  of  the  application  of 
amendments to the Law on the Organisation of the Courts, some higher courts dismissed 
lawsuits for lack of jurisdiction, holding that they can decide only on discrimination cases 
in  employment,  while  basic  courts  have  jurisdiction  to  decide  on  discrimination  cases  in 
other areas  of life.258 Furthermore, they still sometimes dismiss  a lawsuit as the human 
rights  organisation  submitting  the  lawsuit  is  not  represented  by  an  attorney,  although 
they have legal standing to submit a lawsuit.  

Judges  have  problems  with  applying  the  provision  on  shifting  the  burden  of  proof, 
although  some  progress  has  been  visible  in  the  past  two  years.  In  addition,  it  is 
problematic for them to identify the right comparator group, to apply the proportionality 
test, or to even identify the real ground for discrimination. In some cases, judges mix up 
discrimination  and  bullying,  although  it  must  be  admitted  that  this  is  happening  less  in 
2016.  In  addition,  some  judges  do  not  understand  that  not  every  case  of  unequal 
treatment  can  be  considered  to  be  discrimination,  but  in  2016  in  several  judgments 
courts underlined that the different treatment must be based on personal characteristics. 
Cases are still not decided with urgency and courts usually award small amounts for non-
pecuniary  damages,  demonstrating  that  they  still  do  not  understand  the  detrimental 
effect  of  discriminatory  treatment.  The  same  applies  to  courts  for  misdemeanours  and 
the range of fines is very small compared to other acts contained in other laws outside of 
discrimination (around EUR 80 to EUR 800). 

Although the procedure before the Commissioner is free of charge, the Law on Free Legal 
Aid has still not been adopted and legal aid in discrimination cases is limited and depends 
on NGOs  specialised in dealing with discrimination cases. Another problem is  the length 
of  proceedings,  as  Serbia  is  facing  a  huge  problem  of  trials  which  last  for  an 
unreasonably  long  time.  On  1  January  2016,  the  new  Law  on  the  Protection  of  Trials 
within  a  Reasonable  Timeframe  came  into  force,  aiming  to  provide  legal  remedies  for 
unreasonably long trials and to speed up the procedure.259 There is also a problem with 
the  enforcement  of  court  decisions.  The  courts  are  subject  to  changes  in  their 
organisation and many buildings and courtrooms are not fully  accessible for people with 
disabilities.  Furthermore,  mediation  in  discrimination  cases  should  be  used  more  often 
and  this  requires  the  creation  of  rules  that  will  encourage  the  development  of  specific 
forms  of  mediation,  including  mediation  in  discrimination  cases,  which  should  be 
relocated from the courts. 

Finally,  although  the  Commissioner  has  a  wide  range  of  mechanisms  at  its  disposal, 
these  are  not  very  efficient,  as  most  recommendations  are  not  fully  considered  and 
respected. Reasons for this arise from the fact that the Commissioner is not authorised to 
punish  a  perpetrator  of  discrimination  by  imposing  fines  and  is  not  able  to  initiate 
proceedings  ex  officio  when  they  have  knowledge  of  discriminatory  conduct.  It  also 

256  Serbia, Law on the Organisation of the Courts (Zakon o uređenju sudova), Official Gazette of the Republic of 

Serbia, no. 116/2008, 104/2009, 101/2010, 31/2011 – other laws, 78/2011, 101/2011, 101/2013, 
106/2015, 40/2015, 13/2016, 108/2016, 22 December 2008. 

257  Krstić, I. (2016) Analiza usaglasenosti Zakona o zabrani diskriminacije sa zakonodavstvom EU i analiza 
dosadasnje primene [Analysis of conformity of the LPD with EU legislation and its current application in 
Serbia]  

258  Appellate court in Belgrade, no. P. 103/15, decision from 1 July 2015. 
259  Serbia, Law on the Protection of Trials Within a Reasonable Timeframe (Zakon o zastiti prava na sudjenje u 

razumnom roku), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 40/2015, 19 April 2015.  

82 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
remains  unclear  whether  the  court  is  bound  by  the  Commissioner’s  opinion  on  the 
existence or not of discrimination in a discrimination case brought to the court. 

c) 

Number of discrimination cases brought to justice 

In  Serbia,  there  are  no  available  statistics  on  the  number  of  cases  related  to 
discrimination  brought  to  justice.  However,  statistics  are  available  on  the  complaints 
submitted  to  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality.  As  mentioned  above,  in 
2016, 626 complaints were submitted to this specialised body compared to 666 in 2014, 
and  797  in  2015;  none  were  initiated  by  the  Commissioner  as  lawsuits.  260  In  total,  13 
lawsuits have been initiated by the Commissioner since 2010. They concern the following 
grounds:  seven  lawsuits  for  discrimination  against  Roma,  three  for  sex  discrimination, 
one for discrimination based on disability and two for multiple discrimination261 Although 
the number of cases processed rises each year, it is still insignificant in comparison to the 
widespread  nature  of  discrimination  cases  in  practice  in  all  spheres  of  society.  The 
reasons for this lie in insufficient awareness and knowledge about discrimination and the 
lack of determination of victims to seek help. 

d) 

Registration of discrimination cases by national courts 

In Serbia, discrimination cases are not registered as such by national courts. Usually they 
are registered as labour disputes or bullying. These data are available to the public only if 
a decision is posted on the website of a particular court (they are put into a database for 
which a paid subscription is needed), or if someone requests the data under the Law on 
Free  Access  to  Information  of  Public  Importance.262  However,  even  in  this  case,  some 
decisions will not be included, due to being wrongly classified.  

6.2  Legal  standing  and  associations  (Article  7(2)  Directive  2000/43,  Article 

9(2) Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Engaging on behalf of victims of discrimination (representing them) 

In  Serbia,  associations,  organisations  and  trade  unions  are  entitled  to  act  on  behalf  of 
victims of discrimination. Article 35, para. 3, of the  LPD provides that a lawsuit may be 
initiated by an organisation engaged in the protection of human rights or the rights of a 
certain  group  of  people,  on  behalf  of  and  with  the  agreement  of  the  individual  whose 
rights  have  been  violated.  Trade  unions  can  represent  a  member  in  a  labour  dispute, 
through  a  lawyer  who  has  passed  the  bar  exam  (Article  85,  para.  3,  of  the  Civil 
Procedure Code).  

The LPDPD does not provide the possibility for organisations to initiate a lawsuit. 

The  LPD  requires  that,  if  discriminatory  treatment  solely  affects  a  particular  individual, 
organisations may initiate a lawsuit only with  their consent, given in writing. Otherwise, 
consent is not needed. 

Standing does not depend on the number of years of operation of the organisation. It is 
only  important  to  consult  the  statutes  of  each  organisation  and  to  demonstrate  that  it 
deals with human rights or the protection of certain vulnerable groups. Organisations can 
submit  different  claims  stipulated  in  the  LPD,  except  for  pecuniary  and  non-pecuniary 

260  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 6. 

261 Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 161. 

262  Serbia, Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, 

no. 120/2004, 54/2007, 104/2009 i 36/2010, 5 November 2004.  

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
damages,  because  they  initiate  proceeding  in  order  to  protect  an  individual  or  group  of 
people who are exposed to discriminatory acts, and in order to prove discrimination. 

b) 

Engaging in support of victims of discrimination 

In  Serbia,  associations,  organisations  and  trade  unions  are  entitled  to  act  in  support  of 
victims of discrimination. The right to intervention is not explicitly mentioned in the LPD, 
but it stems from Article 35, paras. 3 and 4, which grant standing to initiate lawsuits to 
organisations  and  to  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality.  These  rights  also 
derive from the Civil Procedure Code (Articles 215-217), which is lex generali to the LPD, 
and  accords  the  right  to  intervention  in  someone  else’s  anti-discrimination  lawsuit  to 
those  who  have  legal  authority  to  initiate  a  lawsuit.  Thus,  Article  215,  para.  1,  states 
that, ‘If an individual has a legal interest in assisting one of the parties in litigation, such 
an individual may join that party’. The individual who intervenes may become involved in 
the litigation at any time during the proceedings, until the judgment on the claim comes 
into effect, as well as during the proceedings for extraordinary legal remedy (Article 215, 
para. 2). 

c) 

Actio popularis 

In  Serbia,  national law  allows  associations,  organisations  and  trade  unions  to  act  in  the 
public  interest  on  their  own  behalf,  without  a  specific  victim  to  support  or  represent 
(actio popularis). This right is not recognised in the LPD, but derives from the Law on 
Contract  and  Torts,263  which  in  Article  156  establishes  a  duty  to  eliminate  danger  of 
injury or loss.  

This provision means that everyone can demand that appropriate measures be taken to 
prevent  damage  to  them  or  to  an  unspecified  number  of  people.  This  is  particularly 
applicable in discrimination cases.264 

Although  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  is  not  allowed  to  initiate  actio 
popularis  under  the  LPD,  they  can  initiate  so-called  proto-action  popularis in  a  strategic 
case or, in other words, if a case demonstrates frequent and widespread discrimination in 
respect of which there are good prospects for success. It was previously unclear whether 
the Commissioner needs consent in the case of two or more victims of discrimination, as 
is  necessary  in  the  case  of  one  person.  In  September  2014,  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Cassation put an end to this debate and held that the Commissioner did not need written 
consent as the case affected a group of people – children of Roma origin.265 In this case, 
the  Commissioner  initiated  a  lawsuit  against  a  fast-food  restaurant,  because  a  security 
worker did not allow children of Roma  origin to enter the restaurant with a woman who 
wanted to buy them food. The Supreme Court of Cassation noted that the complaint was 
not  directed  at  the  Commissioner’s  finding  of  discrimination  against  a  particular 
individual, in  which  case  the  Commissioner  would  be  required  to  obtain  written  consent 
to  the  filing  of  the  lawsuit,  but  to  establish  the  existence  of  discrimination  against  a 
group  of  people.  However,  in  one  case,  the  Court  dismissed  the  claim  as  the  case 

263  The Law on Contract and Torts Official Gazette of the SFRJ, no. 29/78, 39/85, 45/89 - decision CCJ and 

57/89, Official Gazette of the SRJ, no. 31/93 and Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia SCG, no. 1/2003 
– Constitutional Charter, 1 July 1978. 

264  Article 156 prescribes that anyone may demand from another to eliminate a source of danger threatening 

considerable damage to them or to an unspecified number of persons, as well as to refrain from an activity 
causing disturbance or risk of loss, should the ensuing disturbance or loss be impossible to prevent by 
adequate measures (para. 1). On the request of an interested person, the court shall order adequate 
measures to be taken to prevent the emergence of damage or disturbance, or to eliminate the source of risk 
– at the expense of the individual who is the source of the risk, should they fail to act accordingly (para. 2).  

265  See Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2015), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for 

Protection of Equality for 2014, Belgrade, p. 128. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
concerned  three  particular  children  and  the  NGO  initiating  the  lawsuit  didn’t  have  their 
written consent.266 

d) 

Class action 

In Serbia, national law does allow associations, organisations and trade unions to act in 
the interest of more than one individual victim (class action) for claims arising from the 
same event.267 

The  Civil  Procedure  Code  from  2011  introduced  so-called  organisational  claims  for  the 
protection  of  collective  rights  and  interests,268  but  in  2013,  the  Constitutional  Court 
proclaimed  the  articles  which  regulate  this  procedure  to  be  unconstitutional.  As  a 
consequence of this decision, on 23 June 2014, the third basic court in Belgrade rejected 
the  first  collective  claim  submitted  by  an  association  of  bank  clients  on  the  issue  of 
foreign currency loans in Swiss francs which covered 10 000 clients.269  

The  Law  on  Consumer  Protection  from  2014  regulates  protection  of  the  collective 
interests  of  consumers,  but  this  protection  has  been  moved  from  civil  (as  it  was 
regulated in the Civil Procedure Code from 2011) to administrative procedure.  

6.3  Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78) 

In Serbia, national law requires a shift of the burden of proof from the complainant to the 
respondent.  

The LPD prescribes a shift of the burden of proof in civil proceedings, unlike the LPDPD, 
which  does  not  provide  a  rule  on  reversing  the  burden  of  proof  from  complainant  to 
defendant in cases of discrimination based on disability.  

Article 45, para. 1, of the LPD provides that, ‘if the court establishes that a direct act of 
discrimination  has  been  committed,  or  if  that  fact  is  undisputed  by  the  parties  to  the 
lawsuit,  the  defendant  may  not  be  relieved  of  responsibility  by  supplying  evidence  that 
they  are  not  guilty’.  If  the  complainant  proves  the  likelihood  of  the  defendant’s  having 
committed an act of discrimination, the burden of providing evidence that no violation of 
the principle of equality or the principle of equal rights and obligations has occurred shall 
fall on the defendant (Article 45, para. 2). 

The  case-law  still  does  not  provide  clear  rules  on  the  application  of  this  principle, 
although in 2016, in several cases the court relied on the reversal of the burden of proof. 
It also seems from the textual interpretation of the relevant articles that this rule applies 
only  in  cases  of  direct  and  indirect  discrimination.  However,  it  must  be  interpreted  to 
mean that the rule on the burden of proof also applies to harassment.270  

However, the rules on the burden of proof, despite being enshrined in the procedural part 
of  the  LPD,  are  not  procedural  in  their  nature,  but  substantive.  As  a  consequence,  the 
court  decides  whether  particular  conduct  constitutes  discrimination,  and  it  is  declared 
only in the explanation of the verdict.  

266  Higher court in Belgrade, no. 7 P 782/15, decision from 29 May 2015. 
267  For more on the collectivisation of legal remedies, see Babovic, B. (2012), ‘Collectivisation of legal redress 

against discrimination’, in Pravni zivot, vol. 11/2012, pp. 1013-1023.  

268  They were introduced for the protection of collective rights and interests and for the protection of 

consumers (Articles 495-505). Civil Procedure Code (Zakon o parničnom postupku), Official Gazette of the 
Republic of Serbia, no. 72/2011, 49/2013 – CC decision, 74/2013 – CC decision, 55/2014, 28 September 
2011. 

269  See Efektiva, ‘Kolektivna tužba odbačena kao nedozvoljena!?’ (‘Collective claim rejected as inadmissible?’), 

8 July 2014, http://efektiva.rs/aktuelnosti-krediti/kolektivna-tuzba-odbacena-kao-nedozvoljena. 
270  See Petrusić, N., Krstić, I., Marinković, T. (2014), Commentary on the Law on the Prohibition of 
Discrimination, Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, Judicial Academy, Belgrade, p. 188. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
This  situation  is  further  exacerbated  by  the  fact  that  the  Civil  Procedure  Code  (which 
applies  as  lex  generali)  imposes  a  duty  to  present  all  the  facts  necessary  to  justify  its 
submission at the preparatory session or at the first hearing, to submit evidence, to take 
a  stand  on  the  allegations  and  evidence  provided  by  the  opposing  party,  as  well  as  to 
propose a time frame for the implementation of the procedure (Article 308). This means 
that both sides provide their evidence at the beginning of the procedure and do not know 
whether the complainant has proved the likelihood of discrimination until the end of the 
procedure. 

Amendments to the Labour Law, which entered into force in July 2014, introduced a new 
rule  on  the  shift  of  the  burden  of  proof  from  complainant  to  defendant  if  there  is  a 
likelihood that discrimination took place, including harassment (Article 23, para. 2). 

6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) 

In  Serbia,  there  are  measures  of  protection  against  victimisation.  Victimisation  is 
enshrined  in  the  LPD  as  a  special  form  of  discrimination.271  Article  9  says  that, 
‘Discrimination shall exist if an individual or a group of persons is unwarrantedly treated 
worse than others are treated or would be treated, solely or predominantly on account of 
requesting  or  intending  to  request  protection  from  discrimination,  or  due  to  having 
offered  or  intending  to  offer  evidence  of  discriminatory  treatment’.  In  other  words,  this 
law protects victims of discrimination, as well as people other than the complainant, such 
as  witnesses  and  someone  who  helps  the  victim  of  discrimination  to  bring  a  complaint. 
However,  there  is  still  a  lack  of  relevant  case  law  on  this  matter,  as  well  as  judicial 
interpretation  as  to  whether  the  reversal  of  the  burden  of  proof  applies  to  victimisation 
under the LPD. Nevertheless, it is necessary to align the definition of victimisation in the 
LPD  with  that  given  in  the  two  EU  directives  from  2000,  in  order  to  provide  protection 
against  dismissal,  and  any  other  consequence  that  may  arise  as  a  reaction  to  the 
complaint. 

In  its  annual  report  for  2016,  the  Commissioner  indicates  that  26  complaints  were 
submitted claiming discrimination based on sexual orientation, compared to 31 submitted 
in 2015. Bearing in mind this reduction in the number of reported cases and reports from 
a  number  of  public  and  non-governmental  organisations  claiming  that  the  LGBTI 
population  is  still  one  of  the  most  vulnerable  groups  in  Serbia,  the  Commissioner 
concluded  that  the  reasons  for  the  failure  to  report  cases  are  lack  of  confidence  in  the 
work of public institutions and also fear of stigmatisation and victimisation.272 

Victimisation is not covered by the LPDPD.  

6.5  Sanctions and remedies (Article 15 Directive 2000/43, Article 17 Directive 

2000/78) 

a) 

Applicable sanctions in cases of discrimination – in law and in practice 

In  Serbia,  there  is  a  range  of  applicable  sanctions  in  discrimination  cases.  Article  43, 
para. 4, of the LPD expressly allows compensation for material and non-material damage 
in  discrimination  cases.273  Article  43,  para.  4,  of  the  LPDPD  also  expressly  provides  for 
compensation  of  damages  which  occur  due  to  a  discriminatory  act.274  The  principles  set 

271  Victimisation is known as ‘calling to account’ in Serbian law. 
272  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 126. 

273  If the complainant is the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, an organisation engaged in the 

protection of human rights or the rights of a certain group of people, or a person who deliberately exposed 
themselves to discriminatory treatment intending to directly verify the application of the regulations 
pertaining to the prohibition of discrimination in a particular case, compensation cannot be claimed. 

274  According to Article 43 of the LPDPD, the complainant can request: (1) court prohibition of further 

discriminatory behaviour, (2) remedy actions to remove the consequences of discriminatory behaviour, (3) 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
out  in  the  Law  on  Contract  and  Torts  apply  for  determining  the  type  of  damage,  and  a 
causal link between the discriminatory act and the damage. 

However,  according  to  Article  43  of  the  LPD,  the  complainant  may  also  demand  the 
following: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

for a ban to be imposed on an action that poses the threat of discrimination, a ban 
on proceeding with a discriminatory action, or a ban on repeating a discriminatory 
action; 
that the court establish that the defendant has treated the  complainant or another 
party in a discriminatory manner; 
for steps to be taken to redress the consequences of the discriminatory treatment; 
and  
that the decision passed be published. 

In  some  cases,  the  court  will  order  some  of  these  measures,  but  will  not  award  the 
compensation. It is very illustrative to mention that  the Belgrade Higher Court rendered 
its  first  judgment  pursuant  to  Article  11  of  the  LPD  which  prohibits  hate  speech  in 
2011.275 The case involved readers’ comments against the LGBTI community in response 
to  an  article  published  on  the  website  of  a  daily  newspaper.  The  court  found  that  the 
newspaper  acted  in  a  discriminatory  manner  against  LGBTI  people  by  allowing  the 
posting of such comments. The court ordered the publication of the impugned comments 
on the website to be banned and ordered the newspaper to publish the entire judgment 
on it, but rejected compensation. 

As  discrimination  cases  are  urgent,  it  is  sometimes  necessary  to  pass  a  temporary 
measure  in  order  to  prevent  discriminatory  treatment  and  victimisation,  with  a  view  to 
eliminating  the  risk  of  violence  or  major  irreparable  damage.  Both  anti-discrimination 
laws prescribe that the complainant may demand temporary measures, when initiating a 
lawsuit,  in  the  course  of  the  proceedings  and  after  the  termination  of  the  proceedings, 
until the court decision is enforced. The request for the adoption of a temporary measure 
must  prove  the  necessity  of  doing  so  in  order  to  eliminate  the  risk  of  violence  or 
irreparable  damage.  The  court  is  obliged  to  issue  its  decision  on  a  request  for  the 
adoption of a temporary measure immediately or within a very short period of time. The 
LPDPD  stipulates  48  hours  for  a  decision  at  the  very  latest,  while  the  LPD  prescribes 
three days. 

The LPD (Articles 50-60) and the LPDPD (Articles 46-52) prescribe the fines which can be 
imposed  in  misdemeanour  proceedings.  In  addition,  other  laws  which  contain  anti-
discrimination  clauses  also  prescribe  misdemeanours,  such  as  the  Labour  Law  and  the 
Law on the Fundamentals of Education. 

Finally, some acts can be considered to be criminal acts, for which it is possible to impose 
monetary fines or imprisonment. 

b) 

Ceiling and amount of compensation 

In  Serbia,  there  is  no  ceiling  on  the  maximum  amount  of  compensation  that  can  be 
awarded,  and  the  amount  is  subject  to  the  judge’s  discretion  in  civil  procedures. 
However,  the  average  amount  in  the  current  jurisprudence  cannot  be  deemed 
appropriate  in  comparison  to  the  amount  of  compensation  in  some  other  areas.  This 
particularly applies to compensation of non-pecuniary damages. For example, there have 
been  several  cases  involving  discrimination  against  people  with  disabilities  and  their 

the court's confirmation that an action or behaviour is discriminatory, and (4) compensation for pecuniary 
and non-pecuniary damages incurred due to discriminatory behaviour. 

275  Higher Court in Belgrade,2. P. br. 3753/10, judgment from 22 February 2011. 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
carers on public transport, who experienced insults and harassment from bus drivers and 
passengers as they used special cards for free travel, to which they were entitled by law. 
In  these  cases,  the  court  found  that  discrimination  had  taken  place  and  ordered 
pecuniary damages, but with regard to non-pecuniary damages the court believed that it 
shouldn’t  award  the  amount  requested  or  it  awarded  a  token  amount  in  comparison  to 
other cases (e.g. insult).276 

Monetary  fines  for  misdemeanours  range  from  between  RSD  10  000  and  RSD  50  000 
(approximately  EUR  80  to  EUR  400)  for  individuals  (Articles  50-60  of  the  LPD),  to  the 
sum of between RSD 10 000 and RSD 100 000 (approximately EUR 80 to EUR 800) for 
legal  entities  (Articles  52-60  of  the  LPD),  which  cannot  be  considered  to  be  dissuasive. 
The  same  can  be  said  for  the  LPDPD,  which  in  Articles  46  to  52  prescribes  the  same 
range  of  monetary  fines.  Despite  the  fact  that  anticipated  fines  are  not  very  high,  in 
practice,  judges  usually  impose  minimal  fines.  An  illustrative  example  is  a  case  of 
segregation  of  Roma  children  in  a  primary  school.  In  this  case,  for  several  years  Roma 
children  attended  separate  classes  in  an  old  building,  located  in  the  same  courtyard  as 
the  new  building,  where  the  other  pupils  learn.277  The  judge  imposed  a  fine  of  RSD 
30 000  (EUR  250)  on  the  school  and  RSD  5 000  (EUR  45)  on  the  principal.  In 
determining  the  amount  and  type  of  punishment,  the  court  found  as  an  aggravating 
circumstance  the  fact  that  it  was  an  offence  of  a  serious  nature,  while  as  a  mitigating 
circumstance the court found that the principal was a father of three children, earning a 
middle-range income, and that the offence did not cause serious consequences, although 
the children were completely separated from their peers for several years. 

For  criminal  acts,  prescribed  by  the  Criminal  Code,  the  following  sanctions  can  be 
imposed: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Violation of Article 128 (violation of equality)  up to three years’ imprisonment and 
for the more severe form three months’ to five years’ imprisonment; 
Violation  of  Article  129  (violation  of  the  right  to  use  a  language  or  alphabet) 
monetary fine or up to one year of imprisonment); 
Violation  of  Article  317  (instigation  or  exacerbation  of  ethnic,  racial  and  religious 
hatred or intolerance) from six months’ to 10 years’ imprisonment; 
Violation of Article 344a (instigation of ethnic, racial and religious or other hatred or 
intolerance by means of actions or slogans at sporting events or public gatherings) 
from three months’ to 12 years’ imprisonment; 
Violation of Article 387 (racial and other discrimination) from three months’ to five 
years’ imprisonment for the more severe form). 

c) 

Assessment of the sanctions 

Over recent years there has been an increase in the number of discrimination cases, but 
in practice there are several problems which affect the effectiveness of sanctions. 

In anti-discrimination cases, it is important to establish an urgent procedure and to allow 
a quick remedy for people exposed to discrimination. Although Article 41, para. 2, of the 
LPD  provides  that  the  proceedings  shall  be  conducted  swiftly,  in  practice  discrimination 
cases are not treated as urgent. It usually takes more than three years to receive a final 
decision, which influences the effectiveness of sanctions. 

Another problem in discrimination cases lies in the application of the principle of shifting 
the  burden  of  proof,  which  is  prescribed  in  the  LPD,  but  not  in  the  LPDPD.  It  is  very 

276  See, for example, Supreme Court of Cassation, Rev. 3602/10, 16 December 2010; Supreme Court of 

Cassation, Rev. 66/12, February 2012.  

277  See Court for Misdemeanours in Novi Pazar, Pr. br. 684/12-69, 13 September 2013; see also Court for 

Misdemeanours in Novi Pazar, Pr. br. 7 – 4162/ 13-67, 14 May 2014. 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
important  to  use  the  mechanism  of  shifting  the  burden  of  proof  as  otherwise  it  will  be 
hard to prove discrimination and to apply an adequate sanction. 

It  has  already  been  mentioned  that  sanctions  imposed  in  discrimination  cases  are  very 
mild, especially in relation to compensation for non-pecuniary damages. Another problem 
is the fact that the monetary fines which can be imposed are symbolic in comparison to 
the fines imposed in  areas  other than discrimination.  In addition, in practice, judges for 
misdemeanours  impose  the  lowest  fines,  even  in  very  serious  cases  of  discrimination. 
This shows that, despite the fact that knowledge among judges about the prohibition of 
discrimination  has  increased,  they  are  still  not  fully  aware  of  the  detrimental  effect  of 
discriminatory  acts.  On  the  other  hand,  both  anti-discrimination  laws  provide  different 
measures,  from  the  prohibition  of  the  discriminatory  act,  to  compensation  and  the 
publication  of  the  court  decision,  which  has  proved  to  be  a  very  effective  measure  in 
Serbia.  The  same  is  indicated  in  the  practice  of  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of 
Equality, whose opinions are mostly respected, in order to prevent their publication. 

89 

 
 
 
7 

a) 

BODIES FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUAL TREATMENT (Article 13 Directive 
2000/43) 

Body/bodies  designated  for  the  promotion  of  equal  treatment  irrespective  of 
racial/ethnic origin according to Article 13 of the Racial Equality Directive 

In  Serbia,  a  ‘specialised  body’  –  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  –  has 
been designated under Article 1, par. 2 of the LPD for the promotion of equal treatment 
irrespective of any ground, including racial or ethnic origin, in accordance with Article 13 
of the Racial Equality Directive. Grounds explicitly covered by the mandate are ‘race, skin 
colour,  ancestry,  citizenship,  language,  religious  or  political  beliefs,  gender,  gender 
identity,  sexual  orientation,  financial  position,  birth,  genetic  characteristics,  health, 
disability,  marital  and  family  status,  previous  convictions,  age,  appearance,  and 
membership of political, trade union and other organisations’.  

There  is  no  other  national  institution,  apart  from  the  Commissioner,  dealing  with 
discrimination issues, although the Ombudsman (the Protector of Citizens) can decide on 
cases which contain elements of discrimination.  

b) 

Status of the designated body/bodies – general independence 

The  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  was  established  by  the  LPD  as  an 
independent,  autonomous  and  specialised  state  body  which  has  a  wide  mandate  in  the 
area  of  the  promotion  of  equality  and  anti-discrimination  in  all  spheres  of  society.  The 
Commissioner  is  elected  by  the  Parliament,  acting  upon  a  proposal  submitted  by  the 
committee  authorised  to  deal  with  constitutional  matters  (Article  28,  para.  1).  The 
Commissioner  may  not  perform  any  other  public  or  political  function  or  any  political 
activity, in accordance with the law (Article 28, para. 5). The Commissioner is elected for 
a period of five years and can be re-elected once (Article 29). According to Article 30, the 
Commissioner’s function shall cease: upon the expiry of  their mandate; if they submit a 
resignation  notice  in  writing  to  the  National  Assembly;  if  they  fulfil  the  conditions  for 
retirement, in accordance with the law; if they are relieved of their duty; and in case of 
their death. The decision to relieve the Commissioner of their duty shall be passed by the 
National Assembly. 

The Commissioner shall be relieved of their duty: 

- 
- 

- 
- 

if they perform their work unprofessionally and negligently; 
if  it  is  established,  by  an  enforceable  court  decision,  that  the  Commissioner  has 
committed a criminal offence punishable by  a prison sentence, when the nature of 
the  offence  makes  them  unworthy  and  unfit  to  perform  the  function  of 
Commissioner; 
if they lose their citizenship and; 
if  they  perform  another  public  function  or  professional  activity,  if  they  perform 
another  duty  or  a  job  that  could  influence  their  independence,  or  if  they  act 
contrary  to  the  law  regulating  conflict  of  interest  when  it  comes  to  performing 
public functions.  

The National Assembly shall pass a decision to relieve the Commissioner of their duty by 
a majority vote of the overall number of representatives of the people. 

The  Commissioner  shall  have  the  right  to  a  salary  equal  to  that  of  a  judge  of  the  High 
Court  of  Cassation,  as  well  as  the  right  to  reimbursement  of  the  expenses  incurred  in 
connection  with  performing  their  function.  The  Commissioner  shall  be  entitled  to  the 
immunity enjoyed by representatives of the people in the National Assembly (Article 31). 
The  Commissioner  has  an  expert  service  to  help  them  in  performing  the  work  they  are 
authorised  to  do.  They  are  also  entitled  to  appoint  three  assistants.  In  addition,  the 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commissioner decides independently, in accordance with the law, on the employment of 
staff  members  for  the  expert  service,  on  the  basis  of  the  need  for  the  professional  and 
efficient discharge of the work the Commissioner is authorised to do. The funds required 
for  the  work  of  the  Commissioner,  their  assistants  and  the  expert  service  is  provided 
from  the  budget  of  the  Republic  of  Serbia,  acting  on  a  proposal  submitted  by  the 
Commissioner.  The  Commissioner’s  head  office  is  in  Belgrade  and  а  regional  office  in 
Novi Pazar  was  opened in March 2014.  However, according to the Report for 2015, this 
regional office didn’t meet expectations as only a small number of citizens communicated 
with the Commissioner and the number of complaints submitted in this part of Serbia is 
still insignificant.278 The situation remains the same in 2016.279 

The  Office  of  the  Commissioner  was  opened  in  June  2011,  in  premises  which  were  not 
adequate  in  terms  of  accessibility  and  technical  and  spatial  capacity.  The  situation 
remained unchanged, although the number and range of activities of the Office increased 
over time. For this reason,  the  Commissioner repeatedly stated in its reports that there 
was  a  need  to  improve  the  spatial  capacity  for  the  Commissioner’s  work.280  On  30 
October  2015,  the  Commissioner  finally  received  a  decision  on  moving  to  other 
premises281  which  would  meet  the  spatial  and  technical  requirement,  with  a  space  of 
1 008  m2.  Since  October  2016,  the  Commissioner  has  been  using  the  new  premises, 
which  also  provides  the  possibility  to  employ  an  additional  19  members  of  staff  for 
various posts (currently, 31 people are employed by the Commissioner). 

c) 

Grounds covered by the designated body/bodies 

The  Commissioner  is  competent  to  deal  with  all  grounds  of  discrimination  enshrined  in 
the  LPD.  Thus,  it  explicitly  covers  ‘race,  skin  colour,  ancestry,  citizenship,  national 
affiliation or ethnic origin, language, religious or political beliefs, gender, gender identity, 
sexual  orientation,  financial  position,  birth,  genetic  characteristics,  health,  disability, 
marital  and  family  status,  previous  convictions,  age,  appearance  and  membership  of 
political, trade union and other organisations’, and all other grounds of discrimination not 
mentioned  in  Article  2,  para.  1.  It  also  means  that  the  Commissioner  is  competent  to 
deal with discrimination against migrants, if an opinion is requested in a particular case.  

d) 

Competences of the designated body/bodies – and their independent exercise 

The Commissioner has a range of measures enshrined in Article 33 of the LPD, which can 
be  divided  into  two  groups:  prevention  of  and  protection  from  discrimination.  From  the 
point of view of victims of discrimination, the Commissioner’s most relevant tasks are to 
receive  and  consider  claims  regarding  discrimination,  to  provide  an  opinion  and 
recommendations  in  concrete  cases,  to  provide  information  to  the  complainant  on  their 
rights and the possibility of initiating a lawsuit or other type of protection measures and 
to file lawsuits for protection from discrimination on behalf of, but with the approval of, 
the individual who has experienced  discrimination. The Commissioner  can also initiate a 
misdemeanour notice against an act of discrimination.  

The  Commissioner  also  submits  annual  reports  (Article  48)  and  special  reports  (Article 
49)  to  the  Parliament  on  the  situation  in  the  field  of  protection  of  equality;  warns  the 
public about the most frequent, typical and severe cases of discrimination; monitors the 
enforcement  of  laws  and  other  regulations,  initiates  the  adoption  of  or  amendments  to 

278  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2016), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2015, Belgrade, p. 15. 

279  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 16. 

280  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 15 

281  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2016), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2015, Belgrade, p. 28. 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
such  regulations,  and  provides  an  opinion  on  the  provisions  of  the  law  and  other 
regulations  for  the  purpose  of  implementing  and  developing  protection  against 
discrimination;  establishes  and  maintains  cooperation  with  bodies  in  charge  of  equality 
and  human  rights  protection  on  the  territories  of  the  autonomous  provinces  and  local 
authorities; and recommends equality measures to state bodies and institutions aimed at 
ensuring equality.  

The Commissioner submits regular annual reports on the work it has done to the National 
Assembly  in  March  each  year.  These  reports  contain  an  evaluation  of  the  situation  in 
Serbia  concerning  the  protection  of  equality,  and  activities  carried  out  by  the 
Commissioner. In addition, the Commissioner can prepare and submit special reports on 
its  own  initiative,  or  upon  the  request  of  the  National  Assembly.  These  reports  contain 
analyses  of  the  position  of  certain  discriminated  groups  and  recommendations  for  the 
improvement  of  that  position  by  undertaking  measures  to  combat  discrimination  more 
effectively. 

The annual report for 2016 was submitted on time (on 15 March 2017).282 There was no 
special  report  prepared  in  2016,  but  the  Commissioner  requested  some  surveys  and 
research.  For  example,  the  Commissioner  ordered  a  report  to  be  written  on  the  public 
perception  of  discrimination  This  was  the  third  time  this  type  of  research  on 
discrimination had been carried out (the first was conducted in 2010, and the second in 
2012).  The  research  was  carried  out  by  the  agency  Factor  Plus  in  June  2016,  using  a 
sample  population  of  1 200  citizens  and  covered  the  whole  territory  of  the  Republic  of 
Serbia.283  The  report  was  presented  to  the  public  on  21  December  2016.  The 
Commissioner  also  conducted  a  survey,  together  with  the  Red  Cross,  on  the  position  of 
older people from rural areas.284  

e) 

Legal standing of the designated body/bodies 

In Serbia, the Commissioner is not entitled to initiate ex officio a complaint procedure in 
cases  in  which  they  have  knowledge  of  discriminatory  behaviour,  unless  the  victim 
submits a claim. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Commissioner  has  legal  standing  to  initiate  a  discrimination 
lawsuit, under Article 46 of the LPD. The Commissioner decides in which cases they will 
initiate a lawsuit, taking into account whether it is a case of strategic litigation; in other 
words  a  case  of  frequent  and  widespread  discrimination  in  respect  of  which  there  are 
good prospects for success (so far litigation has been initiated 13 times).285 The litigation 
is  initiated  and  conducted  in  the  general  public  interest,  in  order  to  contribute  to  the 
consistent  implementation  of  legislation  and  improvement  of  legal  practice,  to  further 
encourage victims of discrimination to initiate anti-discrimination litigation, to uphold the 
rule of law and to contribute to the improvement of access to justice.  

However,  in  order  to  initiate  a  lawsuit,  the  Commissioner  needs  the  consent  of  the 
person  who  has  experienced  discrimination.  In  September  2014,  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Cassation held that the Commissioner does not need written consent if the case affects a 
group of people – children of Roma origin.286 This decision is very important as the court 

282  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2016), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2015, Belgrade.  

283  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2016) Izveštaj o istraživanju javnog mnjenja: Odnos građana i 

građanki prema diskriminaciji u Srbiji (Report on a public opinion survey investigating perceptions of 
citizens towards discrimination in Serbia], Beograd, December 2016. 

284  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 37. 

285  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2016), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2015, Belgrade, p. 171. 

286  See Commissioner for Protection of Equality (2015), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for 

Protection of Equality for 2014, Belgrade, p. 128. 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
noted that the complaint was not directed at the Commissioner’s finding of discrimination 
against  a  particular  individual,  in  which  case  the  Commissioner  would  be  required  to 
obtain  written  consent  to  the  filing  of  the  lawsuit,  but  to  establish  the  existence  of 
discrimination  against  a  group  of  people.  However,  in  another  case  from  2015,  the 
Appellate  court  from  Belgrade  rejected  a  complaint  as  the  organisation  didn’t  have  the 
written consent of three Roma children who were allegedly discriminated against.287 The 
court  explained  that  in  this  case  all  three  children  (siblings  in  one  Roma  family)  were 
known, and that consent is only needed in a case of two or more unidentified persons.  

The Commissioner can demand the following: 

a) 

b) 

c) 
d) 

for a ban to be imposed on an action that poses a threat of discrimination, a ban on 
proceeding  with  a  discriminatory  action,  or  a  ban  on  repeating  a  discriminatory 
action;  
that  the  court  should  establish  that  the  defendant  has  treated  the  complainant  or 
another party in a discriminatory manner;  
for steps to be taken to redress the consequences of the discriminatory treatment; 
that  the  decision  passed  be  published.  The  Commissioner  cannot  claim 
compensation  for  pecuniary  and  non-pecuniary  damages,  which  can  be  demanded 
by victims of discrimination when they initiate a lawsuit on their own.  

The  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  can  initiate  a  misdemeanour  notice,  as 
well as a criminal charge, but is not entitled to punish a discriminator with a fine directly. 

f) 

Quasi-judicial competences 

In  Serbia,  the  Commissioner  is  a  quasi-judicial  institution  as  it  receives  complaints  and 
issues decisions on them. 

This  procedure  before  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  is  a  specific 
procedure, which has the characteristics of a special administrative procedure. Article 40, 
para. 4 of the LPD expressly stipulates that the procedure before the Commissioner shall 
be conducted pursuant to provisions of the Law on  General Administrative Procedure.288 
The  procedure  for  submitting  a  complaint  is  regulated  in  Articles  35  to  40.  A  complaint 
must  be  delivered  within  15  days  from  its  submission  to  the  alleged  perpetrator  of  the 
violation  who  has  15  days  to  respond  to  it.  The  Commissioner  must  give  an  opinion  on 
whether there has been a violation of  the prohibition of discrimination within 90 days of 
receiving a complaint, and  must inform the individual  who submitted the  complaint and 
the  individual  against  whom  the  complaint  was  submitted.  If  the  Commissioner  finds  a 
violation, they will issue a recommendation to the individual against whom the complaint 
was submitted, suggesting a means of redressing the violation in question. Although this 
decision  is  called  a  recommendation  in  the  Law,  it  is  obligatory.  Thus,  the  individual  to 
whom  the  recommendation  is  addressed  is  obliged  to  act  upon  it  and  to  redress  the 
violation in question within 30 days of the day of receiving it. The individual must inform 
the Commissioner of the measures taken. However, if the perpetrator fails to redress the 
violation in question within 30 days, the Commissioner may inform the public in the press 
and online (Article 40, para. 2 of the LPD). 

g) 

Registration by the body/bodies of complaints and decisions 

In Serbia, the Commissioner registers the number of complaints and decisions by ground 
and  field.  These  data  are  available  to  the  public  online,  in  regular  annual  and  special 
reports, as well as in particular publications issued by the Commissioner. For example, in 

287  Appellate court in Belgrade, no.7 P. 782/15, decision from 29 May 2015. 
288  Serbia, Law on General Administrative Procedure, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 18/2016, 9 

March 2016. 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2016,  the  Commissioner  received  626  complaints.  In  respect  of  121  complaints,  the 
personal characteristic was not mentioned. In 505 complaints the personal characteristic 
invoked  was  as  follows:  82  complaints  (12.9 %)  –  disability;  82  (12.9 %)  –  sex;  75 
complaints  (11.8 %)  –  age;  60  complaints  (9.4 %)  –  ethnic  origin;  55  complaints 
(8.6 %)  –  health  status;  52  complaints  (8.2 %)  –  marital  and  family  status;  49 
complaints (7.7 %) – membership of political and trade unions; 36 complaints (5.7 %) – 
property  status;  29  complaints  (4.6 %)  –  religious  or  political  beliefs;  26  complaints 
(4.1 %) – sexual orientation; 18 complaints (2.8%) – conviction; 10 complaints (1.6 %) 
–  citizenship;  nine  complaints  (1.4%)  –  ancestry;  six  complaints  (0.9 %)  –  gender 
identity; five complaints (0.8%) – appearance; four complaints (0.6%) – language; three 
complaints (0.5 %) – genetic features;  two complaints (0.3%) – race and birth, and 31 
complaints (4.9%) for other grounds.289  

With regard to the areas where discrimination occurs, the number  of  complaints  was as 
follows:  employment  (212  complaints  or  33.9 %);  public  authorities  (146  complaints  or 
23.3 %); access to public services and facilities (59 complaints or 9.4 %); education and 
vocation  (47  complaints  or  7.5 %);  healthcare  (31  complaints  or  5.0 %);  public 
information  and  media  (29  complaints  or  4.6 %);  public  sphere  (24  complaints  or 
3.8 %);  social  protection  (18  complaints  or  2.9 %);  private  relations  (11  complaints  or 
1.8 %);  property  rights  (five  complaints  or  0.8 %);  culture,  art  and  sport  (five 
complaints or 0.8 %); pensions (four complaints or 0.6 %); housing (four complaints or 
0.6 %); functioning of trade unions and other organisations (three complaints or 0.5 %); 
judiciary  (three  complaints  or  0.4 %),  collective  minority  rights  (one  complaint  or 
0.2 %);  religious  rights  (one  complaint  –  0.2%)  and  other  areas  (12  complaints  or 
1.9 %).290  The  Report  contains  some  other  data,  such  as  the  number  of  male/female 
applicants;  and  who  submitted  complaints  (individuals  /  organisations  /  legal  entities  / 
state institutions / groups / individuals). 

h) 

Roma and Travellers 

The  Commissioner  recognises  that  Roma  are  among  the  most  discriminated  against 
groups  in  Serbia,  which  is  highlighted  in  all  the  regular  annual  reports.  Every  year  on 
April  8,  International  Romani  Day,  the  Commissioner  issues  a  press  release  drawing 
attention to the fact that the situation of the  Roma minority is still poor and that Roma 
are the most discriminated against group in Serbia. The Commissioner noted in its report 
for  2016  that  Roma  are  frequently  exposed  to  open  and  widespread  hate  speech,  while 
discrimination  against  this  national  minority  is  very  present  in  the  areas  of  education, 
employment,  healthcare  and  housing.291  Some  statistics  demonstrate  that  only  6 %  of 
children age 3-4 are included in preschool programmes, 69 % attend primary school, and 
just 22 % secondary school.292  

For  the  past  five  years,  a  large  number  of  complaints  concern  alleged  discrimination 
against  Roma.  In  2016,  22  complaints  were  submitted  claiming  discrimination  against 
Roma.293  In  two  cases,  discrimination  against  Roma  in  the  media  was  established,  and 
the  Commissioner  issued  a  recommendation  to  refrain  from  offensive  depictions  and  to 

289  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 27.  

290  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 222. 

291  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 112. 

292  Social Inclusion Unit, Analiza primene afirmativnih mera u oblasti obrazovanja roma i romkinja i preporuke 
za unapređenje mera [Analysis of the implementation of positive measures for Roma in education and 
recommendations for their improvement], Government of Serbia, Belgrade, June 2016, pp. 4-5. 

293  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 112, 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
contribute  to  a  change  in  attitudes,  customs  and  practice  which  are  based  on 
stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination against Roma.294  

In  its  2014  annual  report,  the  Commissioner  urged  work  to  start  immediately  on  the 
adoption of a new national strategy for the improvement of the situation of Roma, as the 
strategy adopted in 2005 was due to expire in 2015.295 During 2015, an inter-sector and 
expert  working  group  was  established  for  the  preparation  of  the  new  Strategy  for  the 
Social  Inclusion  of  Roma  in  the  Republic  of  Serbia  for  the  period  2016-2025.  Public 
consultation  was  initiated  in  November  and  was  completed  in  December  2015.296  The 
new  Strategy  for  the  Social  Inclusion  of  Roma  in  the  Republic  of  Serbia  for  the  period 
2016-2025 was adopted in March 2016. The aim of this strategic document is to create 
conditions  for  the  social  inclusion  of  Roma,  to  reduce  poverty  among  them  and  to 
eliminate  discrimination  against  them.  Other  reasons  for  adoption  of  this  strategic 
document  is  to  introduce  mechanisms  for  the  implementation  and  improvement  of 
strategic  objectives,  to  enhance  the  capacity  and  accountability  of  both  the  state 
administration and local self-governments to effectively oversee the implementation and 
protection  of  Roma  rights,  to  secure  budget  funds,  and  to  effectively  involve 
representatives  of  the  Roma  community in  the  process  of  developing  and  implementing 
strategic measures and exercising their rights to employment, housing, education, social 
and  health  protection.  Thus,  it  outlines  five  main  areas:  education,  housing,  health, 
employment and social protection.  

294  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 112, 

295  Commissioner for Protection of Equality (2015), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for Protection of 

Equality for 2014, Belgrade. 16. 

296  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2016), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2015, Belgrade, p. 62. 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
8 

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES  

8.1  Dissemination  of  information,  dialogue  with  NGOs  and  between  social 

partners 

a) 

Legal protection against discrimination 

In  relation to dissemination of information about legal protection against discrimination, 
the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  publishes  brochures  and  handbooks  for 
different professionals and the wider public in order to inform them about discrimination 
and  to  explain  the  available  remedies  if  discrimination  takes  place.  It  actively  works  on 
the visibility of the institution, appears in the media and organises a moot court for law 
students.  In  2016,  a  fourth  competition  was  organised  in  partnership  with  the  Judicial 
Academy  and  the  Open  Society  Foundation.  The  competition  was  open  to  law  students 
from  undergraduate  and  masters  programmes.  The  competition  topic  was  age 
discrimination. 

The  Commissioner  has  the  authority  to  recommend  to  public  authorities  measures  for 
achieving  equality.  Recommendations  can  be  directed  towards  ensuring  that  public 
authorities  take  measures  to  prevent  and  eliminate  institutional  discrimination  and 
improve the functioning of the institutions, as well as to undertake positive measures in 
order to provide full equality, protection and advancement of people or groups who are in 
an  unequal  position  compared  to  other  citizens.  In  2016,  the  Commissioner  issued  665 
recommendations.297 

b)  Measures to encourage dialogue with NGOs 

The  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  cooperates  with  international 
organisations  and  international  and  national  NGOs.  They  are  very  important  partners  in 
advising  about  complex  discrimination  cases,  in  being  involved  in  joint  activities,  in 
providing  important  information  about  discrimination  cases  and  for  situation  testing.  In 
2016, many meetings were organised with different organisations, and the Commissioner 
participated  in  several  seminars,  round  tables  and  conferences  organised  by  NGOs.  In 
addition,  in  2016,  NGOs  submitted  83  complaints,  showing  that  they  are  the  most 
valuable partners of the Commissioner.298 

c)  Measures to promote dialogue between social partners 

In  order  to  promote  dialogue  between  social  partners,  the  Commissioner  for  the 
Protection of Equality organises conferences, round tables, presentations and lectures on 
different issues. It also takes part in different training courses. The Commissioner’s Office 
advises people about their rights and refers them to other institutions, if it finds that it is 
not a discrimination case.  

On  16  November  2016,  the  Commissioner  organised  an  annual  conference,  bringing 
together  all  relevant  partners  and  presenting  its  practice  and  the  challenges  in  its 
work.299  This  event  was  broadcast,  giving  the  opportunity  to  all  citizens  in  Serbia  to  be 
informed  about  the  efforts  of  all  social  partners  to  combat  discrimination in  Serbia.  The 
conference had a regional perspective as ‘The First Regional Forum of South-East Europe 
Equality Bodies’ was  organised on the  occasion of  International Tolerance Day. The aim 
of this event was to establish an effective model of regional cooperation between equality 

297  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 215. 

298  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 6. 

299  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 9. 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
bodies  in  South  East  European  (SEE)  countries,  in  order  to  promote  activities  aimed  at 
human rights protection and equality. A Statement on cooperation was signed during the 
conference  between  the  following  independent  bodies:  the  Commissioner  for  the 
Protection  of  Equality (Serbia), the Commissioner for the  Protection from Discrimination 
(Albania),  Ombudsman  for  Human  Rights  (Bosnia  and  Herzegovina),  Ombudsperson  for 
Gender  Equality  (Croatia),  Ombudsperson  for  Children  (Croatia),  Ombudswoman  for 
Persons  with  Disabilities  (Croatia),  Office  of  the  Ombudsman  (Croatia),  Commission  for 
Protection against Discrimination (FYR of Macedonia), and the Protector of Human Rights 
and  Freedoms  (Montenegro).  They  all  agreed  that  better  regional  cooperation  among 
equality  bodies  is  necessary  in  order  to  build more  tolerant  societies  and  more  efficient 
mechanisms for protection from discrimination in South East Europe.  

The Office for Human and Minority Rights (Kancelarija za ljudska i manjinska prava) also 
undertakes  a  lot  of  activities  in  relation  to  discrimination.  The  Action  Plan  for  the 
implementation of the Strategy  for the Prevention of and Protection from Discrimination 
was adopted on 3 October 2014 and its implementation began in 2015. The Strategy and 
the  Action  Plan  are  the  results  of  consultations  with  the  relevant  NGOs  and  social 
partners, and they continued in 2016. 

d) 

The situation of Roma and Travellers 

The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality deals with cases of discrimination against 
Roma and issues public announcements  on their  situation. In addition, the  Ombudsman 
deals with some cases of discrimination against Roma within its jurisdiction, especially in 
relation  to  cases  of  forced  eviction.  Furthermore,  the  Roma  community  also  has  a 
National  Council  for  the  Roma  National  Minority,  established  under  the  Law  on  National 
Councils  of  National  Minorities.300  It  is  an  elected  body  which  has  the  exclusive  right  to 
manage issues of education, official use of language and public information for Roma.  In 
addition,  a  Council  of  National  Minorities  of  the  Republic  of  Serbia  was  established  with 
the aim of preserving, improving and protecting the national, ethnic, religious, linguistic 
and cultural characteristics of national minorities, including Roma.301 Among other things, 
the  Council  monitors  the  implementation  of  cooperation  between  national  councils  and 
the  competent  authorities  of  the  Republic  of  Serbia,  autonomous  provinces  and 
municipalities. 

The Office for Human and Minority Rights of the Government of Serbia has a section for 
national  minorities,  which  includes  the  Group  for  the  Advancement  of  Roma  and 
Assistance  for  Migrants.  This  body  has  a  duty  to  undertake  activities  related  to 
coordination  and  cooperation  with  relevant  ministries  in  order  to  initiate,  prepare  and 
realise operational measures for the implementation of the Strategy and Action Plan for 
the Advancement of the Situation of Roma; and to cooperate with local government with 
the  aim  of  implementing  local  action  plans.  The  Government  adopted  a  Decision  on  the 
Establishment  of  the  Council  for  the  Improvement  of  the  Situation  of  Roma  and  the 
Implementation  of  the  Roma  Decade.302  The  Council  receives  administrative  and 
technical  support  from  the  Office  for  Human  and  Minority  Rights.  Its  role  is  to  prepare 
proposals  for  the  building  of  a  comprehensive  and  coherent  policy  to  improve  the 
situation  of  the  Roma  population  and  the  implementation  of  the  Decade  of  Roma 
Inclusion; to give opinions on the planned budgetary resources; and to provide opinions 
and expert explanations for the realisation of important social indicators, etc. 

300  Serbia, Law on National Councils of National Minorities (Zakon o nacionalnim savetima nacionalnih manjina), 
Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 72/2009, 20/2014 - decision CC, 55/2014, 3 September 2009. 

301  Decision on the Establishment of the Council for National Minorities (Odluka o obrazovanju Saveta za 

nacionalne manjine), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 50/2009, 10 July 2009; amended on 10 
November 2016, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 91/2016. 

302  Decision on the Establishment of the Council for the Improvement of the Situation of Roma and the 
Implementation of the Roma Decade (Odluka o obrazovanju Saveta za unapređenje položaja Roma i 
sprovođenje Dekade uključivanja Roma), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 46/2013,24 May 
2013. 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
8.2  Compliance (Article 14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78) 

a)  Mechanisms 

In  Serbia,  there  are  no  mechanisms  to  ensure  that  contracts,  collective  agreements, 
internal  rules  of  companies  and  the  rules  governing  independent  occupations, 
professions,  workers’  associations  or  employers’  associations  do  not  conflict  with  the 
principle  of  equal  treatment.  However,  if  there  is  a  claim  that  a  certain  rule  is  in 
contravention  with  the  Constitution  and  the  LPD,  proposals  for  an  assessment  of  its 
constitutionality  and  legality  can  be  submitted  to  the  Constitutional  Court  of  Serbia.  In 
addition,  the  general  principles  of  the  national  system  pertain,  such  as,  ‘lex  specialis 
derogat legi generali’ (special rules prevail over general rules) and ‘lex posteriori derogat 
legi priori’ (more recent rules prevail over less recent rules). 

b) 

Rules contrary to the principle of equality 

In Serbia, there are some laws, regulations or rules which are contrary to the principle of 
equality. In order to identify all of them, specific research needs to be undertaken on this 
issue.  The  problem  is  that  members  of  working  groups  established  for  the  adoption  of 
certain  laws  do  not  usually  have  enough  expertise  in  anti-discrimination  law. 
Furthermore,  there  are  some  laws  which  were  adopted  before  the  LPD  was  adopted  in 
2009. 

It  is  very  important  for  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  to  provide 
opinions on draft laws and other regulations and  to initiate the introduction of new laws 
and  other  regulations,  as  well  as  adopting  amendments  to  existing  ones.  In  2014,  the 
Commissioner  issued  two  opinions  related  to  draft  laws  and  other  acts  and  submitted 
three  proposals  for  the  assessment  of  the  constitutionality  and  legality  of  general  legal 
acts to the Constitutional Court of Serbia,303 compared to 17 opinions and one proposal 
for  the  assessment  of  constitutionality  in  2015.304  However,  in  2016,  the  Commissioner 
issued  40  opinions  on  different  laws,  submitted  one  proposal  for  the  assessment  of 
constitutionality and initiated one initiative for a change to the law – the LPD.305 

303  Commissioner for Protection of Equality (2015), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for Protection of 

Equality for 2014, Belgrade, p. 50. 

304  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2016), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2015, Belgrade, p. 251. 

305 Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 215. 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
9 

COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL 

The  Office  for  Human  and  Minority  Rights,  established  in  August  2012,  provides  expert 
services  to  the  Government  and  relevant  ministries  related  to  the  protection  and 
promotion of human and minority rights; monitors the compliance of national legislation 
with  international  treaties  and  other  international  acts  on  human  and  minority  rights; 
takes  initiatives  to  amend  national  legislation;  deals  with  general  issues  relating  to  the 
status of people belonging to national minorities; monitors the status of people belonging 
to  national  minorities  living  in  the  territory  of  the  Republic  of  Serbia;  and  monitors  the 
exercise of minority rights. 

The  Government  adopted  the  Strategy  for  the  Prevention  of  and  Protection  from 
Discrimination  on  27  June  2013  and  the  associated  Action  Plan  in  2  October  2014.  The 
Strategy  was  presented  as  a  system  of  public  policy  measures  and  instruments  which 
Serbia needs to implement with the aim of reducing all forms and types of discrimination. 
It has been adopted for the period 2013-2018 and is aimed at preventing discrimination 
and  improving  the  situation  of  nine  vulnerable  groups  (women;  children;  people  with 
disabilities;  senior  citizens;  LGBTI  people;  national  minorities;  refugees,  internally 
displaced persons and other vulnerable migrants; people whose health condition may be 
the  grounds  for  discrimination;  and  members  of  religious  communities)  who  are  most 
often exposed to discrimination. 

The  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality,  the  Office  for  Human  and  Minority 
Rights  and  the  Council for  National  Minorities  are  involved  in  the  implementation  of  the 
Strategy.  The  Action  Plan  for  the  implementation  of  the  Strategy  was  adopted  for  the 
period  2014-2018.  The  framework  for  the  implementation  of  strategic  objectives  is  set 
out  in  the  Action  Plan,  which  should  enable  the  realisation  of  the  objectives  and 
measures  established  by 
their 
implementation.  The  Action  Plan  envisages  specific  measures  and  actions  necessary  for 
the  realisation  of  strategic  objectives,  deadlines,  responsible  entities  and  resources  for 
implementation.  It  also  defines  the  indicators  of  the  fulfilment  of  activities,  based  on 
which  monitoring  of  the  extent  of  their  implementation  will  be  conducted,  as  well  as 
indicators for evaluating the objectives and the resources necessary for the achievement 
of established measures. 

the  Strategy  and  systematic  monitoring  of 

99 

 
 
 
 
10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICES 

The  work  of  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  during  its  seven-year 
mandate  must  be  evaluated  as  successful,  despite  technical  and  spatial  constraints.  In 
May  2015,  Brankica  Jankovic,  a  new  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  was 
elected, and  she immediately continued to perform all the duties of her predecessor.  In 
2016,  the  Commissioner  received  626  complaints,  and  issued  opinions  in  51  cases, 
provided 40 opinions on draft laws and general acts and initiated three criminal charges, 
as  well  as  one  misdemeanour  charge,  nine  warnings  and  25  announcements.306  The 
Commissioner  initiated  regional  cooperation  in  2016.  It  also  organised  many  training 
sessions  and  round  tables,  issued  numerous  handbooks  and  guides  and  contributed  to 
awareness-raising  about  discrimination  and  the  legal  framework  for  protection  against 
discrimination.  

The  Commissioner  proposed  changes  to  the  LPD  in  order  to  fully  align  it  with  the  EU 
acquis,  and  before  this  process  it  ordered  an  analysis  of  this  compliance  and  an 
assessment of problematic provisions in practice. Furthermore, it commissioned research 
into the public perception of discrimination. This was the third time this type of research 
had been carried out  on discrimination (the first was conducted in 2010 and the second 
in 2012). The research was carried out in June 2016, using a sample population of 1 200 
citizens and covering the whole territory of the Republic of Serbia. This research showed 
that  around  66  %  of  citizens  are  aware  that  discrimination  is  prohibited  by  law,  while 
51% are aware that there is a specialised institution dealing with discrimination. A total 
of  41%  of  the  respondents  know  the  exact  name  of  the  institution  and  the  current 
Commissioner, which demonstrates a significant increase in the visibility of the institution 
which  was  established  in  2010.  However,  awareness  of  the  existence  of  the 
Commissioner is the lowest among citizens aged 15 to 19 (only 37%), compared to 62% 
for the group aged 50 to 59.  

In  December  2016  the  Mental  Disability  Rights  Initiative  (MDRI)  released  a  report  on 
court  practice  and  legislation  in  relation  to  legal  capacity.307  Although  the  Law  on 
Amendments  to  the  Law  on  Non-contentious  Proceedings  from  2014  brought  some 
positive  changes  in  the  procedure  for  the  deprivation  of  legal  capacity,  some  provisions 
of  this  Law,  as  well  as  the  case  law,  are  still  not  fully  aligned  with  the  relevant 
international standards.308 In order to analyse the relevant case law, the MDRI conducted 
research  in  2016,  comparing  data  with  2013,  when  the  first  analysis  of  this  kind  was 
done.  The  report  is  based  on  analyses  of  699  court  decisions  on  partial  and  full  legal 
capacity deprivation in regular procedures before the basic courts in Serbia. The number 
of  people  who  were  fully  or  partially  deprived  of  legal  capacity  is  still  high,  as  4 739 
people  were  deprived  of  legal  capacity  in  5 280  proceedings.  This  report  shows  that 
people  with  intellectual  disabilities  (40%)  and  persons  with  psychosocial  disabilities 
(33%) are the most affected by this practice. In other words, disability is regarded as the 
dominant personal characteristic that labels a person as ‘incapable’ of taking care of their 
interests and rights. This publication is a good illustration of how serious research can be 
done well 

Bearing in mind that specialisation among judges is needed, as well as enhanced capacity 
and sensitivity to deal with complex issues, training for trainers on anti-discrimination at 

306  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2017), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 6 

307  Kosana Beker, Tijana Milosevic (2016), Pravna sposobnost: sudska praksa i zakoni u Srbiji 2016. Godine 

[Legal capacity: judicial practice and laws in Serbia in 2016], MDRI, Beograd. 

308  In April 2016, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities considered the initial report of 

the Republic of Serbia. The Committee, in its Concluding Observations, recommended Serbia to harmonize 
its legislation with the Convention in a procedure of deprivation of legal capacity, by introducing a system of 
supported decision-making, with respect to peoples' will and preferences. See Committee on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities, Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Serbia, CRPD/C/SRB/CO/1, 23 
May 2016. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the Judicial Academy was introduced at the end of 2015 for eight judges from the higher 
courts from the jurisdiction of four appellate courts, with the support of the OSCE Mission 
in  Serbia.  The  training  programme  was  conducted  in  2016,  with  five  seminars  on 
different issues in relation to discrimination, including the jurisprudence of the ECtHR and 
CJEU. The training for trainers was conducted in order to fulfil three main objectives: 1) 
to  increase  knowledge  in  the  field  of  non-discrimination,  including  the  national  legal 
framework and applicable international law among judges; 2) to harmonise court practice 
in  this  area  of  law  by  enabling  judges  from  different  courts  to  specialise  and  become 
recognised  authorities  in  this  field;  and  3)  to  have  the  possibility  in  the  follow-up 
activities to exchange ideas and discuss controversial legal issues with other judges from 
the  higher  and  appellate  courts.  The  last  activity  was  conducted  on  8  December  2016, 
when  judges  had  a  final  test.  After  the  completion  of  the  programme,  the  judges 
spontaneously established an expert group through the Viber messaging service and they 
are exchanging views on different discrimination cases as they appear in practice. 

The  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  continued  the  successful  cooperation 
with  the  Office  of  the  Council  of  Europe  in  Belgrade,  as  the  coordinator  of  their  joint 
project,  ‘Don’t  judge  a  book  by  its  cover  –  Living  Library  in  Serbia’.  Тhe  aim  of  this 
project  is  to  lessen  the  effect  of  negative  stereotypes  and  prejudice  as  key  causes  of 
discrimination.  The  project  is  supported  by  the  Ministry  of  Youth  and  Sport  of  the 
Republic of Serbia.  National training for the organisers  of the  Living Library was held in 
Sremski Karlovci for members of 19 organisations, with the aim of strengthening a new 
generation  of  organisers  of  Living  Libraries  in  Serbia  who  would  join  the  existing 
network.309 Living Library  was present for the fourth time at the Education  Fair Zvonce, 
part  of  the  Book  Fair  in  Belgrade.  Living  Library  held  787  ‘readings’,  compared  to  2014 
when  it  had  287  ‘readings’.  Another  Living  Library  was  organised  in  December  2015  in 
Novi  Sad,  with  171  ‘readings’.  In  2016,  12  libraries  were  held:  in  Belgrade  (seven), 
Pancevo  (one),  Sabac  (one),  Leskovac  (two)  and  Ivanjica  (one),  with  almost  1 000 
readings, most by gay, vegan and HIV positive people.  

309  The Living Library is an equalities tool that attempts to challenge prejudice by facilitating a conversation 

between two people: Books and Readers. Books are volunteers who have either been subjected to 
discrimination themselves or represent groups or individuals that are at risk of suffering from discrimination. 
Visitors can browse the catalogue for the available anti-discrimination titles, and when they choose title they 
have conversation with a real person. 

101 

 
 
 
                                                 
11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES 

11.1 Potential breaches of the directives (if any) 

In Serbia, national legislation is mainly in accordance with the two EU anti-discrimination 
directives  from  2000.  However,  there  are  some  inconsistencies  and  ambiguities  that 
require further judicial interpretation or changes to the existing legislation. 

a) 

The definition of discrimination 

Discrimination by association is recognised in the LPD, but its application is limited only 
to ‘members of families’ and people close to those being discriminated against.  

The  definition  of  direct  discrimination  is  in  line  with  the  definition  in  the  EU  directives. 
However, it is limited to less favourable treatment and does not cover detriment.  

The  definition  of  indirect  discrimination  doesn’t  include  the  conditional  wording  ‘would’ 
and  can  thus  be  interpreted  as  being  limited  to  the  actual  occurrence  of  disadvantage, 
making  it  impossible  to  challenge  apparently  neutral  provisions  before  they  incur 
disadvantages for actual victims. 

Furthermore, instruction to discriminate is not defined in the LPD and should be included 
in the law. 

b) 

Proving discrimination 

The LPD does not expressly state that situation testing can be used as evidence in court. 
Many questions derive from unclear regulation, such as who the tester is; whether they 
have  a  particular  relationship  with  the  individual  who  reported  the  discrimination; 
whether  they  have  been  discriminated  against  previously;  whether  they  have  any  basic 
knowledge about the testing process; and whether they operate alone. In addition, there 
is the question of whether their primary objective is evidence gathering for another party 
or to initiate a lawsuit, which includes notification of and reporting to the Commissioner; 
and the role of the Commissioner in this regard. 

The  LPD  does  not  contain  any  specific  rule  in  relation  to  statistics.  The  case-law  is  still 
developing and it is not clear how the courts will treat statistical evidence.  

c)  Material scope 

The  LPD  does  not  cover  occupational  pensions,  social  advantages  and  self-employment 
and it is unclear whether it covers social protection and housing.  Although certain other 
laws  regulate  some  of  these  issues,  such  as  self-employment  or  housing,  these 
provisions should be included in the LPD. 

The LPD mentions only access to services and not expressly access to goods.  

The LPD should recognise segregation as an aggravated form of discrimination. 

d) 

Exceptions from discrimination 

The  LPD  should  be  amended  to  include  provisions  on  reasonable  accommodation  for 
persons with disabilities. 

National  law  does  not  provide  for  an  exception  for  employers  with  an  ethos  based  on 
religion  or  belief,  but  there  is  a  blanket  exemption  for  religious  officials  who  can 
discriminate, if this is what their religious doctrines require or allow.  

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Furthermore, the LPD does not explicitly provide an exception for direct discrimination on 
the  ground  of  age  and  further  judicial  interpretation  is  required,  especially  on  the 
application of the proportionality test.  

e) 

Remedies, enforcement and sanctions  

Although  there  is  a  range  of  different  sanctions  which  can  be  imposed  in  discrimination 
cases, some problems which exist in practice, such as delay in the proceedings and mild 
sanctions, influence the effectiveness and proportionality of sanctions. 

Victimisation is recognised in the LPD, but it has to be further aligned with EU law, as it 
does not expressly protect people from dismissal. 

The  LPDPD  does  not  provide  protection  from  victimisation.  In  addition,  the  LPDPD  does 
not  contain  a  provision  on  the  reversal  of  the  burden  of  proof,  although  the  LPD  does 
include  this  concept.  Therefore,  Article  45,  para.  2  stipulates,  the  following:  ‘If  the 
complainant  proves  the  likelihood  of  the  defendant’s  having  committed  an  act  of 
discrimination,  the  burden  of  proof  that  no  violation  of  the  principle  of  equality  or  the 
principle of equal rights and obligations has occurred shall fall on the defendant.’ 

Finally, class action is not permitted by national law in discrimination cases. 

11.2 Other issues of concern  

In 2016, LGBTI rights still remain controversial issue in Serbia and the Law on Registered 
Partnerships has not yet been adopted. Roma  are  still the most vulnerable group, while 
the  growing  number  of  migrants  who  are  staying  longer  in  Serbia,  due  to  limited 
possibilities to enter neighbouring EU states, requires a more efficient asylum procedure 
and better integration policies. 

In addition, a main issue of concern is the lack of relevant anti-discrimination knowledge 
among prosecutors and judges, particularly judges in the minor criminal courts. Although 
several  major  training sessions  were  organised  in  2016,  this is  still  not  enough  and  the 
current  situation  requires  the  implementation  of  different  measures:  the  introduction  of 
an  obligatory  anti-discrimination  course  at  university  level,  workshops  on  anti-
discrimination  during  initial  training  at  the  Judicial  Academy,  as  well  as  mandatory 
seminars  for  the  regular  continuing  professional  development  for  judges  from  different 
jurisdictions.  Of  particular  importance  is  the  organisation  of  training  in  relevant 
international  and  European  standards  in  this  area  of  law,  including  workshops  on 
prejudices and stereotypes.  

Another  issue  is  the  very  low  sanctions  policy  for  discriminatory  acts,  which  shows  that 
judges  are  still  not  aware  of  the  very  detrimental  effects  of  discrimination.  It  is  also 
important  to  provide  training  on  the  shift  of  the  burden  of  proof,  as  this  concept  is  not 
applied in practice and is limited to some legal solutions contained in the Civil Procedure 
Code.  

Finally, it is necessary to enhance the statistical parameters and database for monitoring 
court proceedings concerning discrimination cases.  

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2016 

12.1 Legislative amendments 

The Law on the Police310 was adopted. Article 5 prescribes that police officers must treat 
everyone equally, irrespective of their race, sex or ethnicity, social origin, birth, religion, 
political  or  other  conviction  or  orientation,  gender  and  gender  identity,  financial  status, 
culture, language, age and mental and physical disability.311  

The  new  Law  on  Sports312  was  adopted  which  contains  Article  4,  para.  3,  that  prohibits 
direct  and  indirect  discrimination,  including  hate  speech  against  sportspeople,  sports 
professionals,  sports  organisations,  and  other  participants  in  sport,  on  any  real  or 
presumed  ground.313  This  Law  also  prohibits  any  discrimination  and  violence  against 
children,  and  includes  an  obligation  to  increase  the  participation  of  children,  young 
people,  women  and  people  with  disabilities  in  sporting  activities,  as  well  as  the 
popularisation  of  women’s  sports  organisations  and  giving  equal  importance  to  women 
and people with disabilities in sport.  

The Law on Public Assembly314 was adopted, regulating public gatherings in the Republic 
of  Serbia.  Article  8  prescribes  restrictions  on  freedom  of  assembly,  and  in  paragraph  2 
expressly provides that  a gathering is not allowed  if its objective is  to incite violation of 
the human and minority rights and freedoms  of  others,  or  to incite or encourage  racial, 
ethnic, religious or other inequality, hatred and intolerance.  

In  addition,  prohibition  of  incitement  to  discrimination  is  contained  in  the  Law  on 
Advertising,315  also  adopted  in  January  2016.  Article  8  stipulates  that  it  is  prohibited  to 
publicise advertising messages, directly or indirectly, which give rise to discrimination on 
any grounds, particularly on the basis of beliefs, national or ethnic origin, religion, gender 
or  race,  political,  sexual  or  other  opinion,  social  origin,  property  status,  culture, 
language, age, or mental or physical disability. 

In  2016,  the  Law  on  the  Prevention  of  Discrimination  against  Persons  with  Disabilities 
was  amended,316  stipulating  in  Article  34,  para.  3  that  public  authorities  are  obliged  to 
allow  the  use  personal  facsimile  signature  stamps  by  people  with  disabilities,  especially 
those who are blind or visually impaired, for the signing of legal documents. Article 34a 
extends this duty to other legal entities and individuals. Finally, Article 34a includes  the 
offence of misdemeanour for cases of denial of this right.  

310  Serbia, Law on the Police (Zakon o policiji), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 6/2016, 28 

January 2016. 

311  This provision is closed and does not include all grounds of discrimination, including sexual orientation. 

However, Article 67 further prescribes that police officers must act impartially, giving everyone equal legal 
protection and acting without discrimination on any ground (which is an open-ended list of grounds). In the 
exercise of police powers, police officers are obliged to act humanely, respecting the human and minority 
rights of citizens by giving priority to the rights of vulnerable groups. 

312  The Law on Sports (Zakon o sportu), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 10/16, 8 February 2016. 
313  Article 4, para. 4 also covers professional sportspeople and those who wish to become professionals in 

terms of employment, wages and working conditions, unless the distinction is based on the nature or real 
and decisive conditions for performing certain sporting activities, when the goals to be achieved are 
justified. 

314  Serbia, Law on Public Assembly (Zakon o javnom okupljanju), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 

6/2016, 28 January 2016. 

315  Serbia, Law on Advertising (Zakon o oglasavanju), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 6/2016, 28 

January 2016. 

316  Serbia, Law on Amendments to the Law on the Prevention of Discrimination against Persons with 

Disabilities, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 13/16, 19 February 2016. 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Amendments to the Criminal Code expanded the prohibited grounds of discrimination to 
cover  disability,  sexual  orientation  and  gender  identity  in  Article  128  prescribing  a 
violation of equality.317 

On  1  January  2016,  the  new  Law  on  the  Protection  of  Trials  within  a  Reasonable 
Timeframe came into force, aiming to provide legal remedies for unreasonably long trials 
and to speed up the procedure.318 

In  2016,  the  Ministry  of  Education,  Science  and  Technological  Development  adopted  a 
Rulebook on the criteria and procedures for the admission of Roma students to secondary 
schools  under  more  favourable  conditions,  for  the  achievement  of  full  equality.319  In 
addition, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, after several 
years of consultations, finally adopted a Regulation on detailed criteria for the recognition 
of forms of discrimination perpetrated by an employee, child, student or third party in an 
educational institution.320  

In 2016, the process of further compliance of the LPD with the EU acquits was initiated, 
with the main proposals being to change the definition of indirect discrimination,  to add 
sexual harassment, to recognise segregation as an aggravated form of discrimination, to 
include  delivery  of  services,  to  include  religious  ethos,  to  include  reasonable 
accommodation, and to increase fines for misdemeanour acts prescribed in the Law.  

12.2 Case law 

Ethnic origin 
Name of the court: Court of Cassation 
Date of decision: 11 February 2016 
Name of the parties:  
Reference number: Rev 1920/2015 
Address  of  the  webpage:  www.vk.sud.rs/sr-lat/rev-19202015-obligaciono-pravo-
utvr%C4%91enje-diskriminatorskog-postupanja 
Brief summary: In this case, the complainant was a Macedonian citizen of Roma origin. 
He crossed the Serbian border around 105 times, as he frequently travelled to Germany 
for  family  and  humanitarian  reasons.  However,  on  17  October  2010,  he  was  refused 
entry to Serbia, together with other passengers who were in a minibus. The reason given 
for  the  refusal  was  that  the  complainant  was  unemployed  and  didn’t  have  a  guarantee 
letter  to  travel  to  Germany  or  a  certificate  stating  that  he  had  sufficient  money  for  his 
own  support.  The  court  found  that  the  complainant  didn’t  prove  the  likelihood  of  the 
defendant’s  having  committed  an  act  of  discrimination  based  on  racial,  national  and 
religious grounds. 

Ground not specified 
Name of the court: Appellate Court in Belgrade 
Date of decision: 12 February 2016 

317  Serbia, Article 9 of the Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code (Zakon o izmenama i dopunama Krivicnog 
zakonika), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 94/2016, 24 November 2016. Other prohibited 
grounds are: national or ethnic origin, race or religion, political or other opinion, sex, language, education, 
social status, social origin, property and other personal characteristics. 

318  Serbia, Law on the Protection of Trials within a Reasonable Timeframe (Zakon o zastiti prava na sudjenje u 

razumnom roku), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 40/2015, 19 April 2015.  

319  Serbia, Rules on the criteria and procedures for admission of Roma students to secondary schools under 
favourable conditions, for the achievement of full equality (Правилник о мерилима и поступку за упис 
ученика - припадника ромске националне мањине у средњу школу под повољнијим условима ради 
постизања пуне равноправности), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 12/2016, 12 February 
2016. 

320  Serbia, Regulation on detailed criteria for the recognition of forms of discrimination by an employee, child, 
student or third party in the institution of education (Pravilnik o blizim kriterijumima za prepoznavanje 
oblika diskriminacije od strane zaposlenog, deteta, ucenika ili treceg lica u ustanovi obrazovanja i 
vaspitanja), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 22/2016, 4 March 2016. 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Name of the parties:  
Reference number: Gž1 40 
Address of the webpage: www.bg.ap.sud.rs/cr/articles/sudska-praksa/pregled-sudske-
prakse-apelacionog-suda-u-beogradu/odeljenje-radnih-sporova/gz1-402-16.html 
Brief  summary:  A  complaint  was  brought  against  an  employer  by  a  complainant  who 
was not promoted to a  better paid job  despite the fact that  he had completed a college 
degree  in  the  meantime.  A  female  candidate  was  appointed  to  a  better  paid  job.  The 
complainant  claimed  that  the  employer  changed  an  internal  act  of  workplace 
systematisation in order to adjust conditions for this job to match her qualifications. This 
case  is  relevant  as  the  lower  court  dismissed  a  lawsuit,  finding  that  it  was  unclear 
whether  it  was  submitted  under  Article  195  of  the  Labour  law  or  Article  43  of  the  LPD, 
demonstrating  the  confusion  that  exists  in  the  application  of  these  laws  to  employment 
discrimination. The court also highlighted that there is no discrimination if an act was not 
based  on  a  personal  characteristic.  However,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  court  did 
not find on what ground discrimination occurred in this case. 

Sexual orientation 
Name of the court: Court of Cassation 
Date of decision: 22 April 2016 
Name of the parties:  
Reference number: Rev2 107/2016 
Address of the webpage: www.vk.sud.rs/sr-lat/rev2-1072016-zabrana-diskriminacije 
Brief summary: A high school professor had a problem in a school environment, as he 
was of homosexual orientation. The principal of the school where he was employed once 
declared that, while she was in charge, ‘that Swabian fagot will not work in the school’. 
In  addition,  the  school  counsellor  claimed  that  he  belonged  to  a  Satanist  sect  and  she 
asked  another  teacher  why  she  socialised  with  him.  The  complainant  reapplied  for  a 
teaching post, but his application was rejected. Furthermore, the he wanted to apply for 
a post at three other schools, but heard that the principal and other colleagues informed 
other principals that he was problematic, that he was ‘gay’ and a ‘monster’. In this case, 
the court found discrimination based on sexual orientation and nationality (as the plaintiff 
was of  German origin) in employment. The court applied a reverse burden of proof rule 
and  concluded  that  the  respondent  did  not  provide  any  plausible  evidence  that 
discrimination didn’t occur.  

Residence 
Name of the court: Appellate Court in Nis 
Date of decision: 31 August 2016 
Name of the parties:  
Reference number: 21 Gž.br.1961/16 
Address of the webpage: 
www.ni.ap.sud.rs/sudska%20praksa/gradjansko%20odeljenje/naknada%20stete/Gz%20
1961-16 
Brief  summary:  On  25  March  2014,  the  Grand  Chamber  of  the  ECtHR  delivered  its 
judgment in Vuckovic and others v. Serbia.321 The case was initiated by 30 reservists in 
the  Yugoslav  army  against  the  government’s  refusal  to  pay  per  diems  for  their  work 
during the NATO-intervention in Serbia in 1999, who were subsequently demobilised. For 
this  reason,  the  government  refused  to  pay  the  per  diems  they  were  entitled  to.  After 
public  protests,  the  governments  reached  an  agreement  in  2008  with  some  of  the 
reservists  residing  in  seven  underdeveloped  municipalities.  Only  these  reservists  were 
guaranteed payment of the per diems. The 30 applicants were unable to benefit from the 
agreement,  since  they  resided  in  other  parts  of  the  country.  The  applicants  filed  a  civil 
claim  against  Serbia  and  pointed  to  the  discrimination  resulting  from  the  2008 
agreement.  The  applicants,  however,  did  not  rely  on  any  anti-discrimination  provisions, 
and the court of first instance dismissed the claim based on the fact that the three-year 

321  ECtHR, Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia, app. no. 17153/11 et al., judgment from 25 March 2014. 

106 

 
 
 
                                                 
prescription  period  since  their  demobilisation  had  expired.  Therefore,  they  filed  a  new 
lawsuit after the decision of the Grand Chamber was delivered. In this case, the Appellate 
court agreed with the lower  court that the payment  received  was not a means of  social 
support  as  an  assessment  of  social  status  was  not  performed  in  each  case,  and  it  was 
considered  to  be  a  per  diem.  Therefore,  the  court  concluded  that  this  payment 
constituted discrimination without objective  or reasonable justification. This judgment is 
also  important  as  the  court  directly  relied  on  Article  14  of  the  ECHR.  The  court  further 
underlined  that,  for  the  existence  of  discrimination,  it  is  not  necessary  to  find  an 
intention  to  discriminate.322  It  also  held  that  the  opinion  of  the  Commissioner  for  the 
Protection of Equality does not constitute an act of state authority which is binding for a 
civil court. 

322  However, the Court of Cassation held that the difference in payment constitutes discrimination that cannot 

be justified, but that the preliminary question that must be considered is whether each complainant 
received some payments before the lawsuit and whether he/she requested that payment before. See Court 
of Cassation, Rev 778/2015, 27 January 2016.  

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 1: TABLE OF KEY NATIONAL ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION 

The  main  transposition  and  anti-discrimination  legislation  at  both  federal  and 
federated/provincial level. 

Country:  
Date:   

Serbia 
1 January 2017 

of 
Title 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title 
of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title 
of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of the law: The Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination 
Abbreviation: LPD 
Date of adoption:26 March 2009 
Latest amendments: N/A 
Entry into force: 7 April 2009 
Web link: www.ravnopravnost.gov.rs/en/laws/laws-and-regulations-of-
the-republic-of-serbia 
Grounds  covered:  explicitly  race,  skin  colour,  ancestry,  citizenship, 
national affiliation or ethnic origin, language, religious or political beliefs, 
gender,  gender  identity,  sexual  orientation,  financial  position,  birth, 
genetic  characteristics,  health,  disability,  marital  and  family  status, 
previous  convictions,  age,  appearance,  membership  of  political,  trade 
union and other organisations 
It is an open clause 
Civil law 
Material scope: all areas of public life 
Principal  content:  prohibition  of  direct  and  indirect  discrimination, 
violation  of  the  principle  of  equal  rights  and  obligations,  calling  to 
account323  associating  for  the  purpose  of  exercising  discrimination,  hate 
speech and disturbing and humiliating treatment 
Title of the law: The Gender Equality Act 
Abbreviation: GEA 
Date of adoption: 11 December 2009 
Latest amendments: N/A 
Entry into force: 25 December 2009 
Web link: www.ravnopravnost.gov.rs/en/laws/laws-and-regulations-of-
the-republic-of-serbia 
Grounds covered: gender 
Civil law 
Material scope: all areas of public and private life 
Principal  content:  direct  and  indirect  discrimination,  harassment,  sexual 
harassment 
Title  of  the  law:  The  Law  on  the  Prevention  of  Discrimination  against 
Persons with Disabilities 
Abbreviation: LPDPD 
Date of adoption: 17 April 2006 
Latest amendments: 19 February 2016 
Entry into force: 1 January 2007 
Web link: www.ravnopravnost.gov.rs/en/laws/laws-and-regulations-of-
the-republic-of-serbia 
Grounds covered: disability 
Civil law 
Material scope: all areas of public life 
Principal  content:  direct  and  indirect  discrimination,  violation  of  the 
principle of equal rights and obligations, humiliating treatment 

Title 

of  Title  of  the  law:  Law  on  the  Professional  Rehabilitation  and  Employment 

323  Victimisation is known as ‘calling to account’ in Serbian law. 

108 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title 
of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title 
of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title 
of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title 
of 
legislation  

of Persons with Disabilities 
Abbreviation: LPREPD 
Date of adoption: 13 May 2009 
Latest amendments: 16 April 2013 
Entry into force: 15 May 2009 (Article 24 and 29 on 24 May 2010) 
Web link: www.ravnopravnost.gov.rs/en/laws/laws-and-regulations-of-
the-republic-of-serbia 
Grounds covered: disability 
Civil law 
Material scope: employment 
Principal content: affirmation of equal opportunities 
Title of the law: Law on the Protection of Rights and Freedoms of National 
Minorities 
Abbreviation: LPRFNM 
Date of adoption: 27 February 2002 
Latest amendments: 6 November 2013 
Entry into force: 7 March 2002 
Web link: www.ravnopravnost.gov.rs/en/laws/laws-and-regulations-of-
the-republic-of-serbia 
Grounds covered: national, ethnic, racial origin and language 
Civil law 
Material  scope:  education,  use  of  language,  information,  culture, 
participation in public affairs  
Principal content: prohibition of discrimination, affirmative actions 
Title of the law: Labour Law 
Abbreviation: LL 
Date of adoption: 15 March 2005 
Latest amendments: 21 July 2014 
Entry into force: 23 March 2005 
Web link: www.ravnopravnost.gov.rs/en/laws/laws-and-regulations-of-
the-republic-of-serbia 
Grounds  covered:  gender,  birth,  language,  race,  skin  colour,  age, 
pregnancy,  health  condition,  invalidity,  nationality,  religion,  marital 
status,  family  commitments,  sexual  orientation,  political  or  other  belief, 
social  background,  financial  capacity,  membership  of  political,  labour 
union or other organisations 
It is an open clause 
Civil/administrative law 
Material scope: employment 
Principal content: direct and indirect discrimination 
Title of the law: Law on the Fundamentals of Education  
Abbreviation: LFE 
Date of adoption: 31 August 2009 
Latest amendments: 13 July2016 
Entry into force: 11 September 2009 
Web link: www.ravnopravnost.gov.rs/en/laws/laws-and-regulations-of-
the-republic-of-serbia 
Grounds covered:  racial, national, ethnic, linguistic, religious background 
or  gender,  physical  and  psychological  characteristics,  developmental 
impairments  and  disabilities,  health  condition,  age,  social  and  cultural 
origin, financial status or political views 
Civil/administrative law 
Material scope: education 
Principal content: direct and indirect discrimination 
Title of the law: Criminal Code 
Abbreviation: CC 

109 

 
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Date of adoption: 6 October 2005 
Latest amendments: 24 November 2016 
Entry into force: 14 November 2005 
Web link: www.paragraf.rs/propisi/krivicni_zakonik.html 
Grounds covered: race, colour, religion, nationality, ethnicity or any other 
personal characteristic 
Criminal law 
Material  scope:  all  indicated  areas  employment,  access  to  goods  or 
services  (including  housing),  social  protection,  social  advantages, 
education if the act is enough serious to be considered as criminal act 
Principal content: direct and indirect discrimination 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS 

Country: 
Date:   

Serbia 
1 January 2017 

Instrument  Date of 

signature  
(if not 
signed 
please 
indicate) 
Dd/mm/ 
yyyy 
3.4.2003 

3.4.2003 

22.3.2005 

N/A 

N/A 

Date of 
ratification  
(if not 
ratified 
please 
indicate) 
Dd/mm/ 
Yyyy 
3.3.2004 

Derogation
s/ 
reservation
s relevant 
to equality 
and non-
discriminati
on 
No 

Right of 
individual 
petition 
accepted? 

Can this 
instrument 
be directly 
relied upon 
in domestic 
courts by 
individuals? 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Declaration: 
Among 98 
paragraphs, 
it did not 
accept 10: 
(2.4; 10.5; 
19.11; 
19.12; 27.1; 
27.2; 27.3; 
31.1.; 31.2; 
31.3) 
No 

Yes 

Ratified 
collective 
complaints 
protocol? 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

N/A 

Yes 

3./3.2004 
entered into 
force 
1.4.2005 
14.9.2009 
entered into 
force 
1.11.2009 

12.3.2001 
(succession) 

11.5.2001 
(accession) 
entered into 
force 
1.9.2001 

N/A 

12.3.2001 
(succession) 

No 

No 

Yes 

N/A 

12.3.2001 
(succession) 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

111 

European 
Convention 
on Human 
Rights 
(ECHR) 
Protocol 12, 
ECHR 

Revised 
European 
Social 
Charter 

International 
Covenant on 
Civil and 
Political 
Rights 
Framework 
Convention 
for the 
Protection of 
National 
Minorities 
International 
Covenant on 
Economic, 
Social and 
Cultural 
Rights 
Convention 
on the 
Elimination 
of All Forms 
of Racial 
Discrimina-
tion 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Instrument  Date of 

signature  
(if not 
signed 
please 
indicate) 
Dd/mm/ 
yyyy 
N/A 

Date of 
ratification  
(if not 
ratified 
please 
indicate) 
Dd/mm/ 
Yyyy 
12.3.2001 
(succession) 

Derogation
s/ 
reservation
s relevant 
to equality 
and non-
discriminati
on 
No 

Right of 
individual 
petition 
accepted? 

Can this 
instrument 
be directly 
relied upon 
in domestic 
courts by 
individuals? 

Yes 

Yes 

Convention 
on the 
Elimination 
of 
Discriminatio
n Against 
Women 
ILO 
Convention 
No. 111 on 
Discriminatio
n 
Convention 
on the Rights 
of the Child 
Convention 
on the Rights 
of Persons 
with 
Disabilities  

N/A 

24.11.2000 

No 

N/A 

Yes 

N/A 

12.3.2001 
(succession) 

No 

N/A 

Yes 

17.12.2007 

31.7.2009 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu)  

 
 
 
 
 
 
D
S
-
0
2
-
1
7
-
5
7
0
-
3
A
-
N

ISBN: 978-92-79-68970-3 

doi:10.2838/57684