Country report : non-discrimination : Serbia 2020.
Date: 2020-10-14
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, national law, religious discrimination, report, sexual discrimination, social policy

Serbia 

2020 

including summary 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 
Directorate D — Equality and Union citizenship 
Unit D.1 Non-discrimination and Roma coordination 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Country report  

Non-discrimination 

Transposition and implementation at national level of 
Council Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78 

Serbia 

Ivana Krstic 

Reporting period 1 January 2019 – 31 December 2019 

2020    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, 2020 

© European Union, 2020 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-76-19813-0 

ISSN 2599-9176  

doi:10.2838/211157  

  DS-BB-20-023-EN-N 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Serbia – 2020 

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 5 
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 12 
GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................. 15 
1 
THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION .................................................... 16 
2 
2.1  Grounds of unlawful discrimination explicitly covered ................................ 16 

3 

4 

2.1.1  Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the 

directives ................................................................................. 16 
2.1.2  Multiple discrimination ............................................................... 19 
Assumed and associated discrimination ....................................... 20 
2.1.3 
2.2  Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) ...................................................... 21 
Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) ................................................... 22 
2.3 
Statistical evidence ................................................................... 23 
2.3.1 
2.4  Harassment (Article 2(3)) ...................................................................... 24 
2.5 
Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) ................................................ 26 
2.6  Reasonable accommodation duties (Article 2(2)(b)(ii) and Article 5 Directive 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 26 
PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE ............................................................ 31 
3.1  Personal scope ..................................................................................... 31 

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) ........... 31 
3.1.2  Natural and legal persons (Recital 16 Directive 2000/43) ............... 31 
Private and public sector including public bodies (Article 3(1)) ........ 32 
3.1.3 
3.2  Material scope ...................................................................................... 32 
Employment, self-employment and occupation ............................. 32 

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)) ........................................ 33 
Employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissals 
(Article 3(1)(c)) ........................................................................ 34 
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)) ................................... 34 

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)) ........................................................................ 35 
Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 
3(1)(e) Directive 2000/43) ......................................................... 35 
Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) .................... 37 
Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) ............................... 37 
Access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the 
public (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) .................................... 42 
3.2.10  Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) ................................. 43 
EXCEPTIONS ............................................................................................. 46 
4.1  Genuine and determining occupational requirements (Article 4) .................. 46 
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) ............................................................................................. 46 

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

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 48 
4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) ................................................... 48 
4.5  Health and safety (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) .................................... 50 
4.6  Exceptions related to discrimination on the ground of age (Article 6 Directive 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 50 
4.6.1  Direct discrimination ................................................................. 50 

3 

 
Special conditions for young people and older workers .................. 51 
4.6.2 
4.6.3  Minimum and maximum age requirements ................................... 52 
4.6.4  Retirement ............................................................................... 52 
4.6.5  Redundancy ............................................................................. 54 
4.7  Public security, public order, criminal offences, protection of health, protection 
of the rights and freedoms of others (Article 2(5), Directive 2000/78) ......... 54 
4.8  Any other exceptions ............................................................................. 54 
POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 
2000/78) .................................................................................................. 55 
REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT ................................................................. 57 
6.1 
Judicial and/or administrative procedures (Article 7 Directive 2000/43, Article 
9 Directive 2000/78) ............................................................................. 57 

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

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 63 
6.3  Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78).. 65 
6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) ...... 66 
6.5  Sanctions and remedies (Article 15 Directive 2000/43, Article 17 Directive 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 67 

BODIES FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUAL TREATMENT (Article 13 Directive 
2000/43) .................................................................................................. 70 
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES........................................................................ 80 
8.1  Dissemination of information, dialogue with NGOs and between social partners
 .......................................................................................................... 80 

8.2  Measures to ensure compliance with the principle of equal treatment (Article 

5 

6 

7 

8 

14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78) .................................. 82 
COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL ....................................................... 84 
9 
10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICE ......................................................................... 85 
11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES .................................................. 87 
11.1  Potential breaches of the directives at the national level ............................ 87 
11.2  Other issues of concern ......................................................................... 88 
12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2019 .............................................................. 91 
12.1  Legislative amendments ........................................................................ 91 
12.2  Case law .............................................................................................. 91 
12.3  Cases brought by Roma and Travellers .................................................... 93 
ANNEX 1: MAIN TRANSPOSITION AND ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION  95 
ANNEX 2: INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ....................................................... 98 

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  was  established  in  1991.  The  11th 
legislature commenced its work on 3 June 2016 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 latest census in 2011, the Republic of Serbia has 7 565 761 inhabitants. 
Serbs comprise 83.32 % of the population, Hungarians 3.53 %, Roma 2.05 %, Bosniaks 
2.02 %,  Croatians  0.81 %,  Slovaks  0.73 %,  Montenegrins  0.54 %,  Vlachs  0.49 %, 
Romanians 0.41 %, Yugoslavs 0.32 %, Macedonians 0.32 %, Muslims 0.31 %,1 Bulgarians 
0.26 %, Bunjevci 0.23 %, Rusyns 0.20 %, Gorani 0.11 %, Albanians 0.08 %, Ukrainians 
0.07 %,  Germans  0.06 %,  Slovenes  0.06 %  and  others  0.24 %.  More  than  six  million 
inhabitants  of  Serbia  are  Orthodox  (84.6 %),  followed  by  Roman  Catholics  (5 %)  and 
Muslims (3 %). Other religions are also present in Serbia.  Almost 90 % (88.1 %) of the 
population of the Republic of Serbia considers the Serbian language their mother tongue; 
the  second  language  is  Hungarian  (3.4 %),  followed  by  Bosniak  (1.9 %)  and  the  Roma 
language (1.4 %).2  

2. Main legislation 

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

Serbia introduced a set of anti-discrimination laws that are almost aligned with the two EU 
directives from 2000.4  

In April 2006, the first anti-discrimination law was adopted: the Law on the Prevention of 
Discrimination against  Persons with Disabilities (LPDPD),5 which is supplemented by the 
Law  on  the  Professional  Rehabilitation  and  Employment  of  Persons  with  Disabilities 
(LPREPD).6 Some additional laws have been adopted to further support the LPDPD, such 
as the Law on the Use of Guide Dogs7 and the Law on the Use of Sign Language.8 

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

of religious identity. 

2   Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia (2018), Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade, 
p. 32. The Statistical Yearbook is the result of numerous statistical surveys and calculations, continuously 
conducted every year.  

3   Constitution of Serbia (Ustav Republike Srbije), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 98/2006, 10 

November 2006. 

4   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. 

5   Law on the Prevention of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities (Zakon o sprečavanju 

diskriminacije osoba sa invaliditetom), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 33/2006, 13/2016, 17 
April 2006. 

6   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, 
Nos. 36/2009, 32/2013, 17 April 2006. 

7   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. 

8   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. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Serbia adopted its first comprehensive anti-discrimination law in March 2009. The Law on 
the  Prohibition  of  Discrimination  (LPD)9  was  an  important  milestone  in  securing  basic 
human rights in Serbia through the establishment of systematic anti-discrimination law. It 
prohibits  a  wide  range  of  discriminatory  actions.  In  addition,  all  the  grounds  for 
discrimination  that  are  addressed  in  EU  equality  law  are  covered  in  the  LPD  and  are 
significantly  expanded.10  However,  the  European  Commission  notes  that  further 
amendments to Serbian anti-discrimination legislation are necessary to bring it fully into 
line with the acquis,11 especially in relation to the following: the scope of exceptions from 
the principle of equal treatment; the definition of indirect discrimination; and the inclusion 
of provisions on reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities.12 This process 
was initiated in 2016, but by the end of 2019 it had not been completed.  

Many  other  laws  also  contain  anti-discrimination  provisions,  such  as  the  Law  on  Young 
People,13 the Law on Sports,14 the Law on Churches and Religious Organisations,15 etc.  

The Law on the Protection of the Rights and Freedoms of National Minorities16 regulates 
the way in which the rights of people who belong to national minorities are implemented. 
Amendments  to  this  Law  from  2018  explicitly  introduce  a  provision  to  regulate  the 
protection of national  minorities from discrimination in the  enjoyment of their individual 
rights.17  

The adoption of the Law on Free Legal Aid,18 which was implemented on 1 October 2019, 
was of the utmost importance. Its adoption was anticipated in the Action Plan for Chapter 
23 for the third quarter of 2015. The purpose of this Law is to ensure and provide access 
to justice for everyone. The Law recognises the primary providers of legal aid: attorneys 
and legal aid offices in municipalities. It also limits the role of  civil society organisations 
(CSOs) to providing free legal aid only on the basis of the Law on Asylum and Temporary 
Protection and the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination (apart from providing general 
legal  information  and  helping  beneficiaries  to  draft  submissions),  while  legal  clinics  can 
provide only general legal information. 

In  addition,  criminal  law  protection  against  discrimination  is  regulated  by  the  Criminal 
Code19 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 

9   Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination (Zakon o zabrani diskriminacije), Official Gazette of the Republic of 

Serbia, Nos. 22/2009, 13/2016, 26 March 2009. 

10   The LPD contains an open clause and explicitly 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, and membership of political, trade union and other 
organisations. 

11   European Commission, Serbia 2018 Report, Strasbourg, 17 April 2018, p. 26, available at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/20180417-serbia-report.pdf. 

12   This was specifically mentioned in European Commission, Serbia 2015 Report, Brussels, 10 November 2015, 

p. 56. 

13   Law on Youth (Zakon o mladima), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 50/2011, 8 July 2011. 
14   Law on Sports (Zakon o mladima), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 10/2016, 16 February 

2016. 

15   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. 

16   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, 97/2013, 47/2018, 27 February 2003. 

17   Amendments to the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Freedoms of National Minorities (Zakon o 

izmenama i dopunama zakona o zaštiti prava i sloboda nacionalnih manjina), Official Gazette of the Republic 
of Serbia, No. 47/2018, 28 June 2018. 

18   Law on Free Legal Aid (Zakon o besplatnoj pravnoj pomoći), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, 

No. 87/2018, 21 November 2018. 

19   Criminal Code (Krivični zakonik), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 85/2005, 88/2005 – corr., 
107/2005 – corr., 72/2009, 111/2009, 121/2012, 104/2013, 108/2014, 94/2016, 35/2019, October 6, 
2005. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
a  language  or  alphabet)  and  Article  387  (prohibition  of  racial  and  other  discrimination). 
The  Law  on  Misdemeanours20  regulates  the  procedure  and  the  conditions  and 
implementation of misdemeanour charges. 

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 prohibition of calling to account 
(victimisation is known as ‘the prohibition of calling to account’ in Serbian law); 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 that is given in 
the  EU  directives,  but  it  is  limited  to  less  favourable  treatment  and  does  not  cover 
detriment. The definition of indirect discrimination does not contain the conditional wording 
(‘would’)  and  can  therefore  be  interpreted  as  being  limited  to  the  actual  occurrence  of 
disadvantage, which makes 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  is  a  plausible  explanation  of  this  form  of 
discrimination. 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 EU law in order to include express 
protection from dismissal. 

Hate  speech  is  defined  ambiguously  as  the  prohibition  of  the  expression  of  ‘ideas, 
information and opinions inciting discrimination, hatred or violence against an individual or 
a  group  of  persons  on  account  of  his/her  or  their  personal  characteristics,  in  public 
newsletter  and  other  publications,  in  gatherings  and  places  accessible  to  the  public,  by 
writing  out  and  displaying  messages  or  symbols,  and  in  other  ways.’  In  addition,  hate 
speech  is  not  recognised  as  a  specific  form  of  discrimination  in  the  Racial  Equality  and 
Employment Equality Directives. The LPD forbids association for the purpose of exercising 
discrimination by inciting among others hatred, divisions or enmity on the basis of national, 
racial, religious or other motivations. Instruction to discriminate is mentioned in the LPD, 
but it is not defined. Harassment, taken together with humiliating treatment, is recognised 
as  a  special  form  of  discrimination.  However,  this  provision  is  confusing,  as  humiliating 
treatment is a possible element of harassment, while the term ‘harassment’ is not defined. 

The  LPD  allows  for  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 in accordance  with a  religious doctrine  or the beliefs  or 
objectives  of  churches  and  religious  organisations  that  are  entered  in  the  register  of 
religious organisations is, in accordance with the law regulating the freedom of religion and 
the  status  of  churches  and  religious  organisations,  not  considered  to  be  discrimination. 
This article is problematic as it provides a blanket exemption for religious officials who can 
discriminate if that is what their religious doctrines require or allow. 

20   Law on Misdemeanours (Zakon o prekršajima), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 65/2013, 

13/2016, 98/2016, 25 July 2013.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 provision is included only in the LPREPD and not in the LPD, which means 
that its application is limited only to the area of employment and applies only to disability. 
The LPDPD also 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(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.21  

4. Material scope 

The LPD applies in all areas of public and private life. Article 2(1) defines discrimination as 
‘any  unwarranted  discrimination  or  unequal  treatment’  that  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; 
and discrimination in employment and in education. Thus, the material scope of the LPD 
goes beyond the areas that are 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 or 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,  those  provisions 
should be included in the LPD.  

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

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  there  is  explicit  regulation  that  states  otherwise  (lex 
specialis). However, it was necessary to create a special procedure for discrimination cases 
that  is  designed  to  ensure  the  provision  of  effective  and  efficient  civil  protection  from 
discrimination 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.  In addition, the LPD sets out the 
procedure for initiating civil court cases in cases of discrimination, which can be initiated 
by anyone who claims to have suffered discriminatory treatment, including discrimination 
on the ground of disability It also contains more guarantees than the procedure stipulated 
in the LPDPD. While both laws include a provision in relation to the court’s jurisdiction for 
victims  of  discrimination,  the  LPD  recognises  temporary  measures  and  the  court  must 
decide on requests for them within three days. It provides that the proceedings must be 
conducted with urgency (Article 41(3)). It is particularly important that Article 45 of the 
LPD shifts the burden of proof from the complainant to the respondent. 

21   Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 22/2009, 13/2016, 

26 March 2009, Article 13. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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)  the 
imposition of a ban on an action that poses a threat of discrimination, on proceeding with 
a discriminatory action or 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 provide redress for 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 for the Protection of Equality or by an organisation 
that is 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(4)) and the  LPD (Article 14) and are applied  mainly 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 with a wide mandate for 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,  the most relevant of which, for victims of 
discrimination, are to receive and consider complaints regarding discrimination, to initiate 
strategic litigation and to file offence and criminal charges.22 

The  procedure  of  applying  to  the  Commissioner  is  regulated  in  Articles  35  to  40.  The 
general  rule  is  that  the  provisions  of  the  law  that  regulate  general  administrative 
proceedings  apply  accordingly  to  procedure  that  involve  the  Commissioner.  A  complaint 
must be forwarded within 15 days  of its submission to the alleged  violator, who has 15 
days to respond to it. The Commissioner can propose mediation if both parties agree to it. 
This obligation complies with the Racial Equality Directive, which, in Article 7(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 both 
the individual who submitted the complaint and the individual against whom the complaint 
was  submitted.  If  the  Commissioner  finds  that  there  has  been  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 on it and to redress the violation in question within 30 days 
of  receipt  of  the  recommendation.  The  individual  must  inform  the  Commissioner  of  any 
measures that are taken. If the individual fails to redress the violation in question within 
30 days, the Commissioner may inform the public through electronic and print media, but 
it  cannot  punish  the  violator.  Nevertheless,  the  Commissioner  can  initiate  a  notice  for 
misdemeanour  proceedings  or  a  criminal  charge,  or  a  lawsuit  if  it  finds  that  there  is  a 
strategic case for litigation. 

In  2019,  the  Commissioner’s  office  undertook  many  awareness-raising  activities  on 
discrimination and mechanisms for protection against discrimination, and it continued to 
encourage regional cooperation. The annual report demonstrates that the Commissioner 

22   The Commissioner can provide information to the person lodging a complaint and can recommend 

mediation. They also submit an annual report and special reports to the National Assembly; warn the public 
about the most frequent, typical and severe cases of discrimination; monitor the implementation of laws 
and other regulations; initiate the passing or amending of regulations; provide opinions concerning the 
provisions of draft laws and other regulations; establish and maintain cooperation with different bodies and 
organisations; and recommend measures to public administration bodies and other institutions aimed at 
ensuring equality. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
was very active in 2019.23 During this year, the Commissioner received 711 complaints; 
issued opinions in 70 cases; provided 686 general recommendations and 31 opinions on 
draft laws and general acts; and initiated one strategic litigation lawsuit and six criminal 
charges as well as three misdemeanour charges, 23 warnings and 34 announcements.24 

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: 

Forms of discrimination 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

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

Limitations concerning the scope 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

the LPD mentions only access to services and does not expressly mention access to 
goods. 
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 those issues, such as self-employment 
and housing, those provisions should be included in the LPD. 
the LPD does not 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.  Further  judicial  interpretation  is  required,  especially  with  regard  to 
the application of the proportionality test.25 

Procedural issues 

- 

the LPDPD does not contain a provision on the reversal of the burden of proof. 

23   After the cut-off date for this report, on 13 March 2020, the annual report was submitted to the National 

Assembly.  

24   Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 7. 

25   This was discussed as one of the issues that should be changed in the LPD, but the draft law on 

amendments to the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination does not contain a provision providing an 
exception for direct discrimination on the ground of age. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 
- 

sanctions are still not effective, proportionate and dissuasive. 
The LPD does not contain any specific rule in relation to statistics, and it is still unclear 
how  the  courts  will  treat  statistical  evidence  that  arises  from  the  practice  of  the 
Commissioner for the Protection of Equality. 

2. 

Implementation of the existing normative framework 

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

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

it is important to finalise the process of adoption of amendments to the LPD in order 
to fully align it with the EU acquis, especially bearing in mind that this process now 
takes four years. 
it  is  important  to  prepare  and  adopt  strategic  documents,  including  the  Anti-
Discrimination  Strategy,  as  soon  as  possible,  as  the  last  such  strategy  expired  in 
2018. 
some problems deserve urgent attention, such as the social inclusion of people with 
disabilities and in particular their ability to access services, buildings and documents.  
the need for improvement in the inclusion of the Roma and in particular their access 
to adequate housing, health and social services, and equality in education. 
the need for improvement in the position of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and 
intersex  (LGBTI)  people,  with  particular  emphasis  on  the  recognition  of  same-sex 
registered  partnerships  and  the  elimination  of  stigmatisation  and  discrimination  in 
order to comply with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) jurisprudence 
in Maruko, Romer and Hay. 
according to the Commissioner’s practice, it is important to focus on the prevention 
of discrimination in the provision of services. 
the ageing population, in particular in rural areas, must have better access to health 
and social services. 
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,  which  represents  a  huge  problem  in  assessing  and  monitoring 
discrimination. 
although  training  on  anti-discrimination  law  has  been  provided  to  different  public 
officials, it is important to continue with that training, which must be comprehensive 
and on-going. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 was 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  to  declare  that  country’s 
independence. 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 

Several general and specialised anti-discrimination laws have been adopted in the Republic 
of Serbia. 

The Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination (LPD) is the general anti-discrimination law. 
It was adopted on 26 March 2009,26 thereby establishing an integral system of protection 
from discrimination in the country’s legal system. It came into force on 3 April 2009 (except 
for the provisions relating to the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (Poverenik za 
zaštitu  ravnopravnosti),  which  came  into  force  on  1  January  2010).  The  Law  on  the 
Prohibition  of  Discrimination  expressly  prohibits  discrimination  on  the  basis  of  all  five 
grounds  mentioned  in  two  EU  directives  and  recognises  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  and  marital  and  family  status, 
previous convictions, age, appearance, and membership of political, trade union or other 
organisations.  However,  it  is  important  to  underline  that,  although  the  LPD  includes 
protection  against  discrimination  on  the  basis  of  sexual  orientation,  it  is  still  possible  to 
make  distinctions  between  heterosexual  and  same-sex  couples  in  relation  to  marriage, 
social benefits, etc. This difference is not explicitly included as a specific exception in the 
LPD, but derives from the Constitution and other laws.  

The Law applies to all areas of life, which means that its material scope goes beyond the 
two EU directives. 

The  Law  on  the  Prevention  of  Discrimination  against  Persons  with  Disabilities  (LPDPD) 
prohibits discrimination based on disability.27 The Law was adopted on 17 April 2006 and 
came into force on 1 January 2007.28 It addresses various forms of discrimination against 
people with disabilities  that 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 to include a duty on public authorities, other legal entities and individuals 
to allow the use of personal facsimile signature stamps by people with disabilities for the 

26   Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 22/2009, 26 March 
2009, available at: www.ravnopravnost.gov.rs/en/laws/laws-and-regulations-of-the-republic-of-serbia. 
27   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, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 29/2015, 31 March 2015, and 
the Law on the Use of Sign Language, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 38/2015, 7 May 2015. 
28   Law on the Prevention of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, Official Gazette of the Republic of 
Serbia, No. 33/2006, 17 April 2006. 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. 13/2016, 19 February 2016. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
signing  of  legal  documents.  This  Law  was  followed  by  the  Law  on  the  Professional 
Rehabilitation and Employment of Persons with Disabilities (LPREPD),29 which was adopted 
with the aims of making it possible for greater numbers of people with disabilities to be 
included  in  the  open  labour  market  and  improving  their  employability  and  quality  of 
employment. The Law was amended on 8 April and came into force on 16 April 2013.30  

The Law on the Protection of the Rights and Freedoms of National Minorities31 was adopted 
on  27  February  2003  and  came  into  force  on  7  March  2003.  The  Law  provides  national 
minorities with protection from all forms of discrimination in exercising their civil rights and 
freedoms, and places a duty  on public officials to refrain from acts and regulations that 
discriminate against them. Further, it 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. It is important to underline that the Law does not contain an 
exhaustive  list  of  protected  national  minorites,  but  limits  its  application  to  citizens  who 
have a long and strong relationship with the territory of the Republic of Serbia.32   

The  law  has  been  amended  several  times:  in  2003,  2009,  2013  and  2018.33  The  latest 
amendment includes provisions to prevent discrimination against national minorities in the 
exercise of their individual rights and prescribes in Article 4 that it should not be considered 
discrimination to implement positive measures in public sector employment.34  

The  Labour  Law35  was  adopted  on  15  March  and  came  into  force  on  23  March  2005.  It 
makes specific provisions to prevent discrimination at work and in relation to employment. 
While  the  LPD  contains  general  anti-discrimination  provisions,  the  Labour  Law  contains 
more  specific  provisions  that  relate  to  discrimination  at  work.  It  entitles  employees  to 
initiate lawsuits and claim damages based on the anti-discrimination provisions contained 
within  it.  It  contains  an  open  anti-discrimination  clause,  but  it  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  labour  unions  and  political  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, 2014, 2017 and 2018.  

29   Law on the Professional Rehabilitation and Employment of Persons with Disabilities, Official Gazette of the 

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

30   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. 

31   Law on the Protection of the Rights and Freedoms of National Minorities, Official Gazette of FRY, No. 11, 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. 

32   Law on the Protection of the Rights and Freedoms of National Minorities, Official Gazette of the Republic of 

FRY, No. 11/2002, Official Gazette of SM, No. 1/2003, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, 
Nos. 172/2009, 97/2013, 47/2018, 27 February 2003, Article 2. 

33   On 3 March 2016, the Action Plan for Exercising the Rights of National Minorities was adopted, as envisaged 
in chapter 23 of the Action Plan for Negotiation. 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 
minorities in the public sector and public enterprises; national councils; the economic position of national 
communities; and international cooperation. 

34   Amendments to the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Freedoms of National Minorities, Official Gazette 

of the Republic of Serbia, No. 47/2018, 28 June 2018. 

35   Labour Law (Zakon o radu), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 24/2005, 61/2005, 54/2009, 

32/2013, 75/2014, 13/2017, 113/2017, 95/2018, 15 March 2005. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Many other laws also contain anti-discrimination provisions, such as the Law on Youth,36 
the Law on Churches and Religious Organisations,37 etc.  

36   Law on Youth, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 50/2011, 8 July 2011. 
37   Law on Churches and Religious Organisations, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 36/2006, 27 

April 2006. 

14 

 
 
 
1 

GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK  

Constitutional provisions on protection against discrimination and the promotion 
of equality  

The  Constitution  of  Serbia38  of  2006  includes  the  following  articles  that  deal  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(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  belief,  property  status,  culture,  language, 
age, mental or physical disability, shall be prohibited.’ 

The Constitution does not provide a definition of discrimination, but it prohibits both direct 
and indirect discrimination. It also makes provision for the prohibition of discrimination on 
any ground, not just those grounds explicitly mentioned in Article 21, which means that 
the list is not exhaustive. The provision applies to all grounds that are covered by the EU 
directives,  as  sexual  orientation  is  included  under  ‘any  grounds’.39  In  Article  21(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’.  Article  62  of  the 
Constitution guarantees the equality of spouses. 

Article 76(1) provides that ‘Persons belonging to national minorities shall be guaranteed 
equality  before  the  law  and  equal  legal  protection’,  and  Article  76(2)  states  that  ‘Any 
discrimination on the grounds of affiliation to a national minority shall be prohibited’. Article 
76(3)  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 that are covered by the directives, as the material 
scope of the above-mentioned provisions is broader than those in the directives (including 
economic, social, cultural and political life). 

These provisions are directly applicable,  while  Article 15, Article 21(4) and Article 76(3) 
require the adoption of further laws and regulations to enable their implementation. 

The  constitutional  equality  clause  prescribed  in  Article  21(3)  and  Article  76(2)  can  be 
enforced against private individuals as well as against the state. 

38   Constitution of Serbia (Ustav Republike Srbije), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No. 98/2006, 10 

November 2006. 

39  The absence of explicit mention of ‘sexual orientation’ in the Constitution has not been challenged in court.  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 

THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION  

2.1  Grounds of unlawful discrimination explicitly covered  

The  following  grounds  of  discrimination  are  explicitly  prohibited  in  the  main  legislation 
transposing the two EU anti-discrimination directives: 

The  Constitution  contains  a  brief  list  of  prohibited  grounds  of  discrimination,  specifically 
mentioning (in Article 21(3)) race, sex, national origin, social origin, birth, religion, political 
or other opinions, property status, culture, language, age, and mental or physical disability.  

Article 2(1) of the comprehensive LPD contains a longer list of prohibited grounds than the 
Constitution,  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  Law  on  the  Prevention  of  Discrimination  against  Persons  with  Disabilities  prohibits 
discrimination based on disability.40 

The Labour Law41 prohibits discrimination based on sex, birth, language, race, colour, age, 
pregnancy,  health  condition  or  disability,  national  origin,  religion,  marital  status,  family 
obligations,42  sexual  orientation,  political  or  other  opinions,  social  origin,  property  and 
membership of political organisations and trade unions. 

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 that in EU law, 
although jurisprudence in the area of anti-discrimination is not yet very well developed. In 
addition, as international law is directly applicable in Serbia, a judge can, in the event of 
inconsistencies in the interpretation of different terms,  directly apply definitions that are 
provided  in  EU  directives  and  CJEU  jurisprudence.  Nevertheless,  judges  are  reluctant  to 
apply international and European norms directly, so it is important to define some grounds 
that could be interpreted differently.43  

a) 

Racial or ethnic origin 

‘Race’  and  ‘ethnic  origin’  are  not  defined  in  the  LPD.  However,  Article  26  of  the  Law  on 
Asylum and Temporary Protection44 suggests that race refers to skin colour, descent and 
membership  of  a  specific  ethnic  group.  In  addition,  ‘nationality’  according  to  this  Law 
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’, although citizenship is a separate ground 

40   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, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 29/2015, 31 March 2015, and 
the Law on the Use of Sign Language, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 38/2015, 7 May 2015. 
41   Labour Law, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 24/2005, 61/2005, 54/2009, 32/2013, 75/2014, 

13/2017, 113/2017, 95/2018, 15 March 2005. 

42   'Family obligations' probably means family status, as this is the only law containing this ground of 

discrimination. 

43   See, e.g. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Dimitras and Others v. Greece, Nos. 42837/06, 

3269/07, 35793/07 and 6099/08, 3 June 2013. 

44   Law on Asylum and Temporary Protection (Zakon o azilu i privremenoj zaštiti), Official Gazette of the 

Republic of Serbia, No. 24/2018, 3 April 2018. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of  discrimination.45  The  first  part  of  the  definition  refers  to  ethnic  origin,  meaning  a 
‘membership of a group that is specific in terms of its culture, ethnic or linguistic identity.’ 

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 2010,46 201247 and 201748 no one claimed to be a victim of race discrimination. In 2011 
and 2018, there was only one complaint;49 in 2013, there were five complaints;50 and in 
2015,51 201652 and 201953 there were only two complaints. In one handbook prepared by 
the  Commissioner’s  Office,  ‘race’  is  explained,  for  example,  as  involving  discrimination 
against African Americans. National affiliation and ethnic origin are considered to be one 
ground  of  discrimination,  and  in  the  same  handbook  those  grounds  are  explained  as 
referring to discrimination against the Roma.54 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.55  

b) 

Religion and belief 

The LPD does not define ‘religion and belief’. However, the Law on Asylum and Temporary 
Protection in Article 26 defines ‘religion’ 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’.56 

c) 

Disability 

Some problems arise due to the fact that Serbia does not have a single, comprehensive 
definition  of  the  term  ‘disability’,  which  is  instead  defined  in  several  laws,  by-laws  and 
policy documents. Some older laws contain a medical definition of disability,57 while Article 

45   See, e.g. Appellate court in Nis, Gć. 6816/2018, judgment of 18 April 2018.  
46   Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2011), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2010, Belgrade, p. 52. 

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

Protection of Equality for 2012, Belgrade, p. 66. 

48  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2018), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2017, Belgrade, pp. 217-218. 

49   Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2012), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 
Protection of Equality for 2011, Belgrade, p. 51; Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2019), 
Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality for 2018, Belgrade, p. 246; 
50   Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2014), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2013, Belgrade, p. 101. 

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

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

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

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

53   Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 298. 

54   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, 
available at: 
www.ravnopravnost.gov.rs/jdownloads/files/jednostavna_verzija_praktikuma_za_zastitu_od_diskriminacije.
pdf. 

55   See ECtHR, Timishev v. Russia, Nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, 13 December 2005, para. 55, available at: 
http://minorityrights.org/wp-content/uploads/old-site-downloads/download-218-Timishev-v.-Russia-full-
case.pdf. 

56   Law on Asylum and Temporary Protection, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 24/2018, 26 March 

2018, came into force on 3 June 2018.  

57   According to Article 21 of 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 Law on Pension and Disability Insurance (Zakon o penzijskom i 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3(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 taken ad 
verbum from Article 1(2), of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 
but the meaning and national interpretation of the definition is the same. In addition, the 
Serbian  definition  of  ‘disability’  in  the  LPDPD  is  broader  than  the  CJEU’s  definition.58 
However, ‘disability’ as defined in Article 3(1) of the LPDPD is compatible with the CJEU’s 
definition,  in  which  disability  is  perceived  as  including  a  condition  caused  by  an  illness 
medically diagnosed as curable or incurable, if that illness entails a limitation which results 
in particular from physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with 
various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in 
professional  life  on  an  equal  basis  with  other  workers,  and  the  limitation  is  a  long-term 
one.  The  definition  in  the  LPDPD  takes  into  account  opportunities  to  engage  in  social 
activities in general, rather than in the more limited sphere of professional life to which the 
CJEU case law refers.  

A further definition of ‘people with disabilities’ is included in another law that, together with 
the LPDPD, prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. Article 3(1) of the Law 
on the Professional Rehabilitation and Employment of Persons with Disabilities (LPREPD) 
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 reduced possibilities of being involved in the 
labour market or applying for employment on equal terms with other people. 

The provision in the LPREPD defines the concept of ‘long-term impairments’ as impairments 
that cannot be eliminated by any treatment or medical rehabilitation, which creates long-
term consequences (Article 3(1)). Having different definitions of disability in these two laws 
(LPDPD and LPREPD) leads to legal uncertainty, as each definition applies in the area of 
law  that  is  governed  by  that  legal  instrument.  Not  only  is  the  wording  different;  the 
meaning  of  the  definition  is  not  compatible  with  the  CJEU's  case  law,  as  it  refers  to 
permanent impairment. 

d) 

Age 

The LPD does not define ‘age’, but it gives special protection to children (Article 22) and 
the elderly (Article 23(2)). The National Strategy for Young People considers that young 
people are persons under the age of 30,59 while the Law on Youth more precisely defines 
the young as persons between 15 and 30 years.60 The National Strategy on Ageing (2006-
2015) defines the elderly as persons who are over 65 years old.61 

e) 

Sexual orientation 

Sexual orientation is also not defined in the LPD. However, the draft law on amendments 
to  the  Family  Law,  which  was  submitted  to  the  National  Assembly  at  the  end  of  2018, 
recognises same-sex couples (gay and lesbian) and seeks to equalise their status in non-

invalidskom osiguranju), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 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, 73/2018, 2 April 2003. 

58   See judgment of 11 April 2013, HK Danmark, joined cases C-335/11 and C-337/11.  
59   ‘National Strategy for the Young (2015-2025)’ (‘Nacionalna Strategija za mlade za period 2015-2025’)), 

Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 22/2015. 

60   Law on Youth, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 50/2011, 8 July 2011, Article 3(1)(1). 
61   National Strategy on Ageing (2006-2015), (Nacionalna Strategija o starenju za period od 2006. do 2015), 

Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 76/2006. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
marital relationships. The draft law further prescribes that registered partnerships will be 
governed by a separate law. As of 2019, this draft law had not yet been adopted.  

2.1.2  Multiple discrimination 

In Serbia, multiple discrimination is prohibited by law. According to Article 13 of the LPD, 
multiple discrimination is recognised as a severe form of discrimination. Article 13 states: 

‘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); 
...’ 

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  the  number  of  complaints  claiming  multiple 
discrimination increased in 201762 and 2018.63 

In 2019, 116 complaints (20.1 % of the total number of complaints) that contained two or 
more grounds for discrimination were submitted to the Commissioner (in comparison with 
102 in 2016, 138 in 2017 and 188 in 2018).64 However, this does not mean that multiple 
discrimination was present in all those 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  was  most  frequent  in 
relation  to  age,  disability,  birth,  sex,  marital  and  family  status  and  health.65  Multiple 
discrimination usually occurs in various proceedings before public authorities, and in the 
area of employment on the basis of sex and the marital and family status of women. In 
addition,  some  reports  illustrate  that  there  is  widespread  discrimination  against  women 
with  disability,  ageing  women,  women  living  in  rural  areas  and  Roma  women.66  Also, 
migrant women are very often exposed to multiple discrimination in Serbia.67 

62   Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2018), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2017, Belgrade, p. 162. 

63   Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2019), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the   

Protection of Equality for 2018, Belgrade, p. 182. 

64   Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 297. The number of complaints in 2018 was much higher than 
in 2019 as a consequence of the amendments to the Law on Financial Assistance to Families with Children, 
which contained some discriminatory provisions, as a result of which many complaints were submitted to 
the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality. 

65   Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 246. 

66   Praxis (2019), Submission concerning Serbia to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 

(Izveštaj o Srbiji Komitetu za ekonomska, socijalna i kulturna prava), available at: 
https://www.praxis.org.rs/images/praxis_downloads/Praxis_submission_to_CESCR_for_the_65_PSWG.pdf 
 67  Kisic, M. and Petrovic, A. (2019), The Space for Women and Girls: Voices of women refugees and migrants 
in Serbia (Prostor za žene i devojke: glasovi žena izbeglica i migrantkinja u Srbiji), Belgrade, available at: 
https://adra.org.rs/2019/06/20/devojcice-i-zene-iz-izbeglicke-i-migrantske-populacije-dele-svoja-iskustva-
u-adrinoj-novoj-publikaciji/  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

In Serbia, discrimination based on a perception or assumption of a person’s characteristics 
is prohibited in national law. 

Article 2(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). 

In many opinions, the Commissioner has underlined that discrimination can be perpetrated 
on the basis of real or presumed personal characteristics. In 2018, the Commissioner found 
for the first time that discrimination had been based on presumed characteristics. Namely, 
the  Commissioner  found  that  a  bank  had  rejected  a  loan  application  from  the  Serbian 
Association of Journalists, basing its decision on the presumption that the association had 
unstable revenues as a non-profit organisation.68 In 2019, the Commissioner found that a 
two-year-old boy who was not talking had been exposed to discrimination in a kindergarten 
based on his presumed health, as he was labelled by a director of the institution as a ‘child 
with special needs’.69 In addition, the Commissioner found that the president of a women’s 
organisation had been exposed to humiliating comments, as she advocated for LGBTI rights 
and  identified  as  a  lesbian.  The  Commissioner  initiated  criminal  charges  against 
unidentified persons in this case.70 In addition, research involving 206 LGBTI+ people and 
10  companies  showed  that  38 %  of  respondents  had  experienced  discrimination  in  the 
workforce in the past five years due to their real or presumed personal characteristics.71 
The results of the research also indicated that only one fifth of LGBTI people freely express 
their sexual orientation or gender identity at work, while two thirds do not manifest their 
orientation or identity at all.72  

68  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (Poverenik za zaštitu ravnopravnosti), U.n.s. v. R. b. a.d. B, 

complaint No. 07-00-506/2016-02, opinion of 24 August 2018. See also Commissioner for the Protection of 
Equality, K. S. v. Fondation M.T.G.B., complaint No. 07-00-532/2017-02, opinion of 9 March 2018. Here, the 
Commissioner found that the Foundation for Young Talents had discriminated against a high-school pupil 
based on the presumption that pupils who attend private schools enjoy good material conditions and do not 
deserve a scholarship. 

69   Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (Poverenik za zaštitu ravnopravnosti), D.M. v. S.M. and K.P., 

complaint No.  07-00-1207/2018-02, opinion of 8 March 2019. 

70  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the     

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, pp. 259- 260. 

71   IDEAS (2019), Dignity at Work – Research on the Position of LGBTI+ people in the field of work and 

employment (Dostojanstvo na radu - istraživanje o položaju LGBTI+ osoba u oblasti rada i zapošljavanja), 
Belgrade, p. 27. 

72  IDEAS (2019), Dignity at Work – Research on the Position of LGBTI+ people in the field of work and 

employment (Dostojanstvo na radu - istraživanje o položaju LGBTI+ osoba u oblasti rada i zapošljavanja), 
Belgrade,, p. 5. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
b)  Discrimination by association 

In Serbia, discrimination based on association with persons with particular characteristics 
is prohibited in national law. Article 2(1) of the LPD 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,73 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).  The  definition  of  ‘discrimination’  states  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 who are discriminated against.74  

Article 3(2) of the LPDPD contains the same provision in relation to discrimination that is 
based on disability, in line with the judgment in the Coleman case.75 However, it further 
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).  

In  one  case,  an  applicant  claimed  that  she  had  been  fired  due  to  her  disability  and  the 
disability of her child.76 The court did not find that there had been discrimination in that 
case,  but  it  accepted  that  discrimination  by  association  is  possible.  In  2019,  the 
Commissioner  initiated  criminal  charges  against  sports  fans  for  incitement  of  national, 
racial, religious and other hatred during a sporting event, at which they insulted the wives 
and sisters of players from the opposing club.77 

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

a) 

Prohibition and definition of direct discrimination 

In Serbia, direct discrimination is prohibited by Article 2(1) of the LPD. Article 6 of the LPD 
provides  the  following  definition:  ‘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 
definition in the EU directives. However, it is limited to less favourable treatment and does 
not cover detriment. 

Article 6(2) of the LPDPD contains a similar definition of direct discrimination, which says 
that discrimination exists ‘if an individual or a group of persons, in the same or a similar 
situation, are placed or have been placed, or might be placed by act or action in a more 
unfavourable position because of his/her or their disability.’ 

73   There is no definition of ‘families’ in the LPD, but the Family Law contains a definition and it does not include 
same-sex families. However, the draft law on changes to the Family Law has been submitted to Parliament 
and will hopefully, if adopted, extend its meaning.  

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

is covered by the term ‘discrimination by association’. 

75   Judgment of 17 July 2008, Coleman v. Attridge Law and Steve Law, C-303/06. 
76   Supreme Court of Cassation, Rev 2 26/17, judgment of 18 January 2017.  
77   Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 260. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
b) 

Justification of direct discrimination 

According to the wording of Article 6, there is no justification for direct discrimination. 

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

a) 

Prohibition and definition of indirect discrimination 

In Serbia, indirect discrimination is prohibited in national law. Article 7 of the LPD defines 
indirect discrimination, stating 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 does not contain 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. Therefore, the European Commission against 
Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) recommended that Serbia should ensure that it is possible 
to  take  legal  action  in  cases  of  indirect  discrimination  even  before  actual  disadvantages 
occur, and should amend the definition of indirect discrimination in that respect.78  

The LPD 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. 

There  are  only  a  few  cases  in  which  the  Commissioner  found  that  there  was  indirect 
discrimination. One such case involved a local authority in Serbia. The authority had taken 
several decisions concerning eligibility for  various social benefits (such as free bus rides 
and financial assistance for unemployed mothers) that stipulated as one of the criteria that 
the  person  should  have  a  place  of  residence  within  the  territory  of  the  city.  The 
Commissioner found that those decisions involved indirect discrimination towards internally 
displaced  persons  who  live  in  that  municipality  but  do  not  have  a  residence. 79  Another 
complaint involved a person with hepatitis C. The Commission of the Republic Health Fund 
decided that she was not able to receive a certain therapy as she had not previously been 
treated for liver cirrhosis. She claimed that hepatitis C patients with contraindications to 
interferon pegylated therapy were therefore placed in an unequal position in comparison 
with patients with hepatitis C who did not have such contraindications, as they did not fulfil 
the  condition  of  having  ‘previously  unsuccessfully  treated  compensated  liver  cirrhosis’, 
which was a precondition for prescription of certain drugs from the list of free drugs. The 
Commissioner  found  that  there  was  indirect  discrimination  of  patients  in  the  claimant’s 
situation as the neutral condition of ‘previously unsuccessfully treated compensated liver 
cirrhosis’ placed this group of hepatitis patients in an unequal position.80 

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  of  the 

78   ECRI, Report on Serbia (fifth monitoring cycle), adopted on 22 March 2017, p. 16, available at: 

https://rm.coe.int/third-report-on-serbia/16808b5bf4.  

79   Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, Organisation P. v. Assembly of the City of Kraljevo, complaint 

No. 07-00-85/2018-02, opinion of 27 July 2018. 

80   Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, M. in the name of N.M.M. v. RFZO,  complaint No. 07-00-

64/2019-02, opinion of 18 June 2019. 

22 

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

2.3.1  Statistical evidence 

a) 

Legal framework 

In Serbia, there is legislation regulating the collection of personal data.  

On 9 November 2018, the National Assembly of Serbia adopted the long-awaited new Law 
on Personal Data Protection, which was implemented in August 2019.81 The main reason 
behind  the  adoption  of  this  new  piece  of  legislation  was  to  ensure  the  same  level  of 
protection of personal data as in EU Member States. It represents a literal translation of 
the  General  Data  Protection  Regulation  and  therefore  exhibits  a  high  level  of  formal 
compliance with the EU law, but its practical application is highly questionable. The Law 
contains  anti-discrimination  provisions  in  Article  2(2),  prescribing  that  ‘personal  data 
protection is provided to any person, regardless of his/her nationality and residence, race, 
age,  sex,  language,  religion,  political  and  other  belief,  etnicity,  social  status  and  status, 
wealth, birth, education, social status or other personal characteristics.’82 

The Law defines personal data in Article 4(1) as ‘any data pertaining to a natural person 
whose identity is identified or identifiable, directly or indirectly, in particular on the basis 
of  an  identity  mark,  such  as  the  name  and  an  identification  number,  location  data, 
identifiers  in  electronic  communication  networks  or  one  or  more  features  of  his/her 
physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural and social identity.’ In Article 
17(1), the law defines sensitive data as ‘data relating to race or ethnic backgound, political 
opinion,  religious  or  philosophical  belief,  union  membership,  processing  of  genetic  data, 
biometric data for the purpose of unique identification of persons,  health status, or data 
concerning sexual life and sexual orientation’. According to Article 18, those data can be 
processed only if it is necessary and in the following situations: 1) the competent authority 
is  authorised  by  law  to  process  special  types  of  personal  data;  2)  processing  of  special 
types of personal data is performed in order to protect the vital interests of the person to 
whom the data relate or another natural person; 3) processing refers to special types of 
personal  data  that  the  person  to  whom  they  refer  has  obviously  made  available  to  the 
public. 

In  Serbia,  statistical  evidence  may  be  admitted  under  national  law  in  order  to  establish 
indirect  discrimination,  but  this  question  requires  further  judicial  interpretation.  Such 
evidence is used in the opinions of the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality and is 
not challenged by courts.83 

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  its  use  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 that are submitted to the Commissioner. 

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

Serbia, No. 87/2018, 21 November 2018. The Law’s application commenced nine months after its adoption. 
The Law was criticised by the Commissioner of Information of Public Importance and Personal Data 
Protection, CSO and the European Commission with regard to its non-compliance with the domestic legal 
framework. See PC Press, ‘Today begins the application of the new Law on Personal Data Protection’ (‘Danas 
stupa na snagu novi Zakon o zaštiti podataka o ličnosti’), 21 August 2019, available at: 
https://pcpress.rs/danas-stupa-na-snagu-novi-zakon-o-zastiti-podataka-o-licnosti/ 

82   Although not explicitly mentioned, this provision also includes sexual orientation ('any other personal 

characteristic'). 

83   See, e.g. First Basic Court in Belgrade, 73 P. No. 18254/2012, judgment of 17 September 2013; Appellate 

Court in Belgrade, Gž. – 2746/14, judgment of 10 September 2014; Supreme Court of Serbia, Rev. 
262/2015, judgment of 26 March 2015. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
b) 

Practice 

In  Serbia,  statistical  evidence  is  used  in  practice  in  order  to  establish  indirect 
discrimination. Although there is no boundary that prevents the use of statistical evidence 
in order to establish other forms of discrimination, relevant case law is still lacking. Such 
evidence  is  used  by  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality,  mostly  in  cases 
involving  pregnancy.  However,  such  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 evidence 
before the court.84 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. 

Harassment  is  not  clearly  defined  in  the  LPD.  Article  12  prohibits  harassment  and 
humiliating treatment together, which is confusing. 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 as a possible element of harassment, 
which is confusing. This law applies to everyone (any individual under the jurisdiction of 
Serbia, as well as any legal entity registered or operating on Serbian territory) and in all 
areas of public life. 

Article 21(2) of the Labour Law prohibits harassment and provides a definition of it. 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. 

Harassment is not defined in the LPDPD. 

In  Serbia,  harassment  explicitly  constitutes  a  form  of  discrimination.  In  the  LPD, 
harassment explicitly constitutes a form of discrimination, while the Labour Law does not 
explicitly recognise it as such. In addition, the LPDPD does not recognise harassment as a 
special  form  of  discrimination.  It  considers  harassment  to  be  a  more  severe  form  of 
discrimination only if it is committed by public authorities when people with disabilities are 
seeking to have their rights recognised (Article 11(3)). 

b) 

Scope of liability for harassment 

Where harassment is perpetrated by an employee, the employer and/or the employee is 
liable. The scope of liability for harassment is not defined in the LPD. It 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. 

84   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, 87/2018, 3 September 2011.  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Employers are liable for harassment. They are also liable for harassment that is perpetrated 
by  an  employee,  if  they  did  not  prevent  it  by  undertaking  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 Work85 (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 
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  include  ‘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 2018, the Commissioner initiated strategic litigation  on the grounds of words used in 
the  text  Domestic  violence  and  violence  against  the  family.  The  author  expressed  his 
opinion that the Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence does not protect vulnerable 
women, but all women ‘no matter if they are strong or weak, loved or unloved, nervous or 
fussy, and whether they have a lover or not.’ The author further advocates the traditional 
and patriarchal organisation of the family, in which the man is the head of the household 
and should make all the important decisions regarding the family. In addition, members of 
the  LGBT  community  and  their  activities  are  defined  as  primitive  and  violent,  and  the 
author advocates their restriction of freedom of movement and assembly. The Higher Court 
in Novi Sad delivered the decision that the author had committed an act of discrimination 
in  the  form  of  harassment  against  women  on  the  grounds  of  sex  and  an  act  of 
discrimination against LGBT people based on sexual orientation.86 The Court emphasised 
in  particular  that  the  author  is  a  public  figure  and  ‘has  the  obligation  not  to  promote 
discrimination in its public appearances, not to outline the ideas that incite discrimination, 
which may have detrimental effects on democratic processes and the guarantee of human 
rights  and  freedoms  in  a  society.’  However,  this  decision  was  revised  by  the  Appellate 
Court in Novi Sad, which found that the author had the right to freedom of expression and 
that his profession (university law professor) was irrelevant in this case.87 In other words, 
the  higher  court  found  that  the  author  was  not  discriminating  against  LGBT  persons  by 
expressing his opinion on this group, which falls within his right to freedom of expression. 
In addition, in March 2019, the Commissioner strongly condemned sexist, misogynistic and 
extremely  offensive comments  in  social networks against a women who dared to  report 
years of sexual harassment and abuse by her employer, who was the mayor in her home 
town. The Commissioner underlined in particular that such messages discourage women 
from reporting harassment, abuse and violence.88  

85   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. 

86   Higher Court in Novi Sad, II. 1344/2017, judgment of 8 May 2018.  
87   In this case, the court found that the author expressed his view and not the facts. The court mentioned the 
proportionality test stipulated in Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights and found that 
the test was met, as the author had expressed his personal view on some important topics without 
offending anyone. Appellate Court in Novi Sad, Gž. 3576/18, judgment of 17 October 2018. 

88  See the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality’s website: http://ravnopravnost.gov.rs/upozorenje-za-

javnost-cir1/. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
As harassment is recognised as a special form of discrimination in Article 12 of the LPD, 
liability also exists outside the context of employment.  

The  special  by-law  prescribes  duties  on  the  part  of  the  employer  and  the  employee 
concerning a healthy working  environment and the prohibition of ill-treatment, mobbing 
and harassment.89 The employer should provide a working environment in which work is 
performed in an atmosphere of respect, cooperation, openness, security and equality, and 
is  responsible  for  investigating  formal  complaints  of  harassment,  and  for  providing 
adequate  remedies  in  such  cases.  The  employee  should  treat  other  colleagues  and  the 
employer with dignity, respect and esteem and refrain from any form of ill treatment or 
harassment.  However,  according  to  Serbian  law,  only  the  employer  can  be  sued  for 
harassment and mobbing.  

2.5  Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) 

a) 

Prohibition of instructions to discriminate  

In Serbia, instructions to discriminate are not prohibited in national law. Instructions are 
not  defined.  Therefore,  ECRI  criticises  the  fact  that  under  the  LPD,  an  instruction  to 
discriminate and an announced intention to discriminate do not appear to be  considered 
forms of discrimination as recommended in General Policy Recommendation 7.90  

Article 13(1) of the LPD provides only that ‘causing and encouraging 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.91 Age is a protected ground of discrimination, but it is not recognised as 
a  severe  form  of  discrimination.  However,  it  can  be  considered  as  a  severe  form  of 
discrimination  if  other  conditions  are  met  -  e.g.  in  a  case  of  multiple,  intersectional, 
repeated or extended discrimination.  

In Serbia, instructions do not explicitly constitute a form of discrimination. 

b) 

Scope of liability for instructions to discriminate 

In  Serbia,  the  instructor  and  the  discriminator  are  liable.  Although  the  instruction  to 
discriminate is not explicitly prohibited in national law, the scope of application of the LPD 
is  very  broad  and  it  should  be  interpreted  as  recognising  the  liability  of  the  instructor. 
However, there is as yet no case law that would clarify this matter. 

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 duty  on  employers to provide reasonable accommodation for people with 
disabilities is included in the law and is defined. However, it does not fully comply with the 
duty as set out in Article 5 of Directive 2000/78. 

89   Rulebook on the rules of conduct of employers and employees regarding the prevention and protection 

against harassment at work (Pravilnik o pravilima ponašanja poslodavaca i zaposlenih u vezi sa prevencijom 
i zaštitom od zlostavljanja na radu), 62/2010.  

90   ECRI, Report on Serbia (fifth monitoring cycle), adopted on 22 March 2017, p. 14. 
91   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; and the most important, Article 317, prohibits 
incitement of national, racial and religious hatred and intolerance.  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  Law  on  the  Professional  Rehabilitation  and  Employment  of  Persons  with  Disabilities 
(LPREPD)92 states in Article 11(4) that one of the actions in connection with the promotion 
of  the  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 the right to claim reasonable accommodation under 
the  LPREPD,  so  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  meeting  the  requirements  of  Article  5  of  the 
Employment Equality Directive. 

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.93 The LPREPD further clarifies that the adaptation of work 
activities  can  involve  adjustments  to  the  work  process  and  work  tasks  (Article  23(3)). 
Adaptation of the workplace can refer to the technical and technological equipment that is 
used  in  a  workplace,  tools,  space  or  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 their 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, which are measures 
that can further support reasonable accomodation. 

Article 22(4) of the LPDPD further prescribes that discrimination occurs  where there is a 
refusal  to  undertake  technical  adaptations  in  the  workplace  that  would  enable  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 workers the right to reasonable 
accommodation, although it is not clear if this right extends to job applicants as well.  In 
this  provision,  the  reasonable  accommodation  duty  is  individualised  and  is  part  of  non-
discrimination law. However, it is limited in its application: reasonable accommodation can 
take  forms  other  than  workplace  adaptation,  but  Article  22(4)  refers  only  to  technical 
adaptations in the workplace. It provides a broader justification test than is provided for in 
EU law, and further judicial interpretation is required in this field. The obligation for which 
the  LPDPD  provides  is  not  sufficient,  as  noted  by  the  UN  Committee  on  the  Rights  of 
Persons with Disabilities. That is why the Committee recommended that Serbia review its 
legislation  to  adequately  guarantee  the  provision  of  reasonable  accommodation  in  the 
workplace.94 

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 a general anti-discrimination law.95  

92   Law on the Professional Rehabilitation and Employment of Persons with Disabilities, Official Gazette of the 

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

93  This means that, depending on the disability and the job, the employment of certain persons can require 
special conditions to be met – for example, concerning the adaptation of the working process or working 
duties. In that case, it means that the person can require ‘special conditions’ of work if he or she is the best 
candidate for the job.  

94   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.  

95   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. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
b)  Practice and case law 

The  lack  of  a  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  in  the  LPD  has  led  to  a  high 
unemployment rate among people with disabilities and has reduced their possibilities for 
inclusion in the labour market. Although it is positive that the LPDPD, in Article 22, provides 
this duty, relevant case law is still lacking on this issue, as the reasonable accommodation 
duty is not recognised in the LPD. Consequently, in its 2016 progress report for Serbia, the 
European  Commission  acknowledged  that  while  Serbian  non-discrimination  legislation  is 
generally in line with European standards, amendments to bring it fully into line with the 
acquis remain to be adopted, in particular in respect of the obligation to ensure reasonable 
accommodation for employees with disabilities.96 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.97  

c) 

Definition of disability and non-discrimination protection 

The LPDPD prohibits discrimination based on disability. It 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(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;  who  are 
faced with social and other limitations and barriers affecting their working capacity and the 
possibility of finding or retaining employment; and who have no possibility or  a reduced 
possibility  of  being  involved  in  the  labour  market  or  applying  for  employment  on  equal 
terms  with  other  persons  (Article  3(1)).  This  definition  is  based  on  a  social  model  of 
disability;  Article  3(1)  of  the  LPREPD  defines  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 taken ad verbum from Article 1(2), 
of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as in the LPDPD, but the 
meaning is the same. This definition of disability, which is used in the LPDPD in respect of 
the prohibition of discrimination, is also used in relation to the duty to provide reasonable 
accommodation, to the extent that such a duty exists. 

d) 

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 (to the extent that the duty exists). The LPDPD stipulates in Article 22(4) 
that discrimination occurs in the case of a refusal to carry out a technical adaptation of the 
workplace that would  enable efficient work by  people with disabilities. An individual can 
request such an adaptation. However, the employer can be exempted from this obligation 
if  the  costs  of  the  adaptation  are  disproportionate  to  the  profit  of  the  employer  who  is 
employing a person with a disability. In other words, the disproportionality of the burden 
is assessed only in financial terms, and it is a broader justification than that for which EU 
law provides. In addition, there is an individual relationship between the profit gained from 

96   European Commission, Serbia 2016 Report, Brussels, 9 November 2016, p. 62; available at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-
enlargement/sites/near/files/pdf/key_documents/2016/20161109_report_serbia.pdf. See also European 
Commission, Serbia 2019 Report, Brussels, 29 May 2019, p. 27.  

97   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.  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
employing the person with a disability and the cost of the accommodation for that person. 
This provision is not clear, and one could argue that it seems to imply that the employer 
still has to gain some profit from employing the person with a disability. Therefore, further 
judicial interpretation is required in order to clarify this matter. Furthermore, Article 2(1) 
of the LPD and Article 3(2) of the LPDPD clearly state that discrimination occurs as an act 
or  omission  and  this  can  be  interpreted  to  apply  to  a  failure  to  provide  reasonable 
accommodation. However, it is important to mention that, under a strict interpretation of 
Article 22(4), reasonable accommodation assumes only technical adaptations and cannot 
take other forms such as reassigning tasks, moving people to another function, etc., which 
contradicts Article 5 of Directive 2000/78/EC.98  

One study in particular underlines the fact that inclusive education is guaranteed by law, 
but in practice many schools fail to provide  reasonable accommodation for children with 
disabilities in the form of accessible transport, learning materials and teaching assistants, 
which are needed to enable them to participate on an equal basis with others.99  

It is important to mention that a failure to provide reasonable accommodation can be either 
direct  or  indirect  discrimination,  as  both  definitions  define  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.  

e)  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(5)(3)). However, 
the  Law  does  not  introduce  a  disproportionate  burden  test.  The  LPD  does  not  define 
accessibility, but it stipulates in Article 17(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 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. 

The duty to provide reasonable accommodation does not explicitly cover education. In its 
concluding  observations,  the  Committee  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities 
recommended 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.100 

98   Therefore, some claim that denial of reasonable accommodation is not prohibited as a form of 

discrimination. See Equal Rights Trust (2019), Equality in Practice – Implementing Serbia's Equality Laws, 
London, p. 26. 

99   Equal Rights Trust (2019), Equality in Practice – Implementing Serbia's Equality Laws, London, p. 21.  
100  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. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 sector and/or the private sector 

30 

 
 
 
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). 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.  However, Article 21 of the 
Constitution  also  applies,  which  means  that  the  LPD  must  be  interpreted  in  accordance 
with the constitutional provisions and must therefore provide protection in this case. This 
dilemma  is  not  resolved,  even  through  Article  3(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.  However,  in 
practice, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality acts if complaints are submitted 
as a result of discrimination against asylum seekers and migrants, and does not question 
if they are residing legally or illegally in Serbian territory (undocumented migrants are also 
covered).101 

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(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(1)  states  that  discrimination  can 
occur against persons and groups as well as members of their families or persons close to 
them. Article 2(2) explains that the terms ‘person’ and ‘everyone’  refer to individuals as 
well as to ‘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 natural and legal persons 
for the purpose of liability for discrimination. Thus, Article 4(2) provides that everyone shall 
be obliged to respect the principle of equality and the prohibition of discrimination. 

Article 2(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  Serbia,  another 
state or stateless persons, as well as any legal entity registered or operating on  Serbian 
territory. 

101  See, e.g. Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (Poverenik za zaštitu ravnopravnosti), C. K. P. R. v. 

Railways of Serbia, complaint No. 07-00-575/2016-02, 27 March 2017. 

31 

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

a) 

Protection against discrimination 

In  Serbia,  the  personal  scope  of  national  anti-discrimination  law  covers  the  private  and 
public sectors, including public bodies, for the purpose of protection against discrimination. 
Article 3(1) prescribes that everyone has the right to receive efficient protection from all 
forms of discrimination. Article 2(1) of the LPD explains that ‘everyone’ is protected against 
discrimination; this term refers to individuals as well as to ‘any legal entity registered or 
operating on the territory of the Republic of Serbia’, whether private or public.102 

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. Article 4(2) 
stipulates  that  everyone  shall  be  obliged  to  respect  the  principle  of  equality  and  the 
prohibition  of  discrimination.  Article  2(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  

In Serbia, national legislation applies to all sectors of private103 and public employment,104 
self-employment  and  occupation,  including  contract  work,  military  service  and  holding 
statutory office, with regard the five grounds of discrimination.105  

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, and 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(2) of the LPD prohibits discrimination in the sphere of labour, and provides that 
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 

102  Article 2(4) defines a public body as ‘a state organ, autonomous province organ, local government organ, 
public company, institution, public agency and other organisations 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 a local government.’  

103  See e.g. Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, I.K. from U. v.PTP D. DOO frm K., complaint No. 07-

00-00555/2016-02, opinion of 17 November 2017.  

104  See e.g. Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, Z. D. from B. v. O. hospital Š., complaint No. 07-00-

263/2017-02, opinion of 17 October 2017. 

105  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 and any other personal 
characteristic. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
contract  of  employment,  a  volunteer  or  any  other  person  who  works  on  any  grounds 
whatsoever’. The LPD covers all five grounds  of discrimination that are prohibited in the 
Racial Equality Directive and the Employment Equality Directive. 

The LPREPD provides for the prohibition of discrimination against people with disabilities 
and  applies  to  an  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(3)). 

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 relation to 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,  on  the  five  grounds,  in  both  the  private  and  public  sectors,  as 
described in the directives.  

Article  1(1)  of  the  Labour  Law  governs  ‘Rights,  duties  and  responsibilities  arising  from 
employment, and/or in the area of work’, which are regulated by this Law and by other 
specific  laws  to  conform  with  the  ratified  international  conventions.  Article  20  prohibits 
discrimination with regard to access to employment, selection and recruitment (paragraph 
1),  and  job  promotion  (paragraph  4).  Thus,  it  does  not  cover  self-employment  and 
occupation. The Labour Law covers all five grounds that are 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.  Article 
43(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(1), prohibits discrimination as  it is defined in the 
LPD  and  guarantees  freedom  of  choice  of  employment  and  occupation.  However,  this 
provision is limited as it does not apply to the entire scope of the Law, but only in respect 
of  support  for  self-employment.  Employment  activities  comprise  the  dissemination  of 
information on employment opportunities and conditions; job matching within the country 
and internationally; vocational guidance and career counselling; and the implementation 
of active employment policy measures (Article 6). 

Article 16(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. This Law does not 
cover self-employment. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Article 13(2) of the Law on the Employment  of Foreigners applies to asylum seekers,106 
stipulating that people who apply for asylum shall be issued with personal work permits 
nine months after submitting their asylum application. These personal work permits shall 
be valid for six months, with the possibility of extension for the duration of the holders’ 
status. This solution is, to a certain extent, in line with the standards set out in the Directive 
on Reception Conditions.107 The Law on Asylum and Temporary Protection108 stipulates that 
the  asylum  seekers  have  access  to  employment  (Article  48(8);  Article  57),  as  well  as 
refugees (Article 59(6); Article 65). Where asylum seekers and refugees have the right to 
work, they are protected under Article 16 of the LPD, which prohibits discrimination in the 
sphere of labour. 

Article 21(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,  on  all  five  grounds  and  in  both  private  and  public 
employment.109 

Article  20(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 paragraph 5).  

Article 16(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. 

3.2.4  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 by adult lifelong 
learning courses.  

Article  16(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(2)). 

106  Law on Employment of Foreigners, (Zakon o zapošljavanju stranaca), Official Gazette of the Republic of 

Serbia, No. 128/2014, 113/2017, 12/2016, 50/2018, 4 December 2014. 

107  Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, laying down 

standards for the reception of applicants for international protection. 

108  Law on Asylum and Temporary Protection (Zakon o azilu i privremenoj zaštiti), Official Gazette of the 

Republic of Serbia, No. 24/2018, 26 March 2018, came into force on 3 June 2018. 

109  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 and any other personal 
characteristic. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This  right  is  also  guaranteed  for  people  who  perform  some  kind  of  practical  work 
experience,  although  there  is  no  employment  relationship.  Article  19(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(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. 
Article  12(1)  of  the  LPDPD  prohibits  discrimination  in  associations  on  the  ground  of 
disability.  The  Law  further  clarifies  that  this  discrimination  includes  the  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; and the 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. 
The LPD prohibits discrimination based on ‘membership in political, trade union and other 
organisations’  (Article  2(1)).  It  further  prescribes  in  Article  25  that  it  is  prohibited  to 
discriminate against an individual or a group of persons on the grounds of his  or her  or 
their  political  beliefs,  or  membership  or  non-membership  of  a  political  party  or  a  trade 
union.  

The Labour Law prohibits discrimination based on ‘membership in political organisations or 
trade unions’ (Article 18(1)). Furthermore, Article 183(1) does not consider dismissal to 
be justified if it is based on ‘membership in political organisations or trade unions’. Finally, 
an  employer  may  not  terminate  an  employment  contract  or  otherwise  disadvantage  an 
employee because of his or her status  or activity as a  representative,  union member or 
participant in union activities (Article 18).  

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). However, 
this provision does not include same-sex families. 

Article 25 of the Law on Social Protection110 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’. 

110  Law on Social Protection (Zakon o socijalnoj zaštiti), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 24/2011, 

4 April 2011. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Law on Healthcare111 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 
Serbian  territory  (Article  3(1)).  Persons  who  are  passing  through  Serbian  territory  are 
entitled only to emergency medical care (Article 3(2)). According to Article 20, 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 23); 2) the principle of fairness, which means the prohibition of discrimination in 
the  provision  of  healthcare  based  on  race,  sex,  gender,  sexual  orientation  and  gender 
identity,  age,  national  origin,  social  background,  religion,  political  or  other  opinion, 
property  status,  culture,  language,  type  of  illness,  mental  or  physical  disability  (Article 
21);112  and  3)  the  principle  of  comprehensive  cover,  which  involves  the  inclusion  of  all 
citizens of the Republic of Serbia in the healthcare system (Article 22). 

The  LPD  applies  to  all  areas  of  life,  but  does  not  explicitly  mention  social  protection  in 
Section III, which covers special cases of discrimination.113 The Law also does not explictly 
mention social housing. However, a National Strategy for Social Housing has been adopted, 
and  the  city  of  Belgrade  has  adopted  an  action  plan  for  the  relocation  of  informal 
settlements in order to respect international and national standards in respect of eviction 
and  resettlement.114  The  Law  on  Housing  and  Building  Maintenance  further  improves 
protection in respect of relocation.115 This Law 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(1)). 
However,  according  to  Article  89(1),  beneficiaries  of  housing  support  must  be  Serbian 
citizens.  Beneficiaries  of  housing  assistance  are,  in  particular,  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  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’. 

Article 27 of the LPD 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  in  Article  27(2)  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’. 

111  Law on Healthcare (Zakon o zdravstvenoj zaštiti), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 25/2019, 

11 April 2019. 

112  After the cut-off date of this report, the new Law on Healthcare was adopted. Article 21 of the Law explicitly 
includes sexual orientation. Law on Healthcare, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 25/2019, 11 
April 2019. 

113  The LPD contains section III recognising special cases of discrimination (Articles 15 to 27 recognise 

discrimination in proceedings conducted before public administration bodies, in the sphere of labour, in 
provision of public services, education, etc). However, it does not contain a provision on a special case of 
discrimination in the area of social protection. It means that this area is protected in the Law, but it is not 
recognised as the most relevant area, and it deserves to be further elaborated on in the Law. 

114  ECRI, Report on Serbia (fifth monitoring cycle), Council of Europe, adopted on 22 March 2017, p. 31. 
115  Law on Housing and Building Maintenance (Zakon o stanovanju i održavanju zgrada), Official Gazette of the 

Republic of Serbia, No. 104/2016, 23 December 2016. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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; 
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. 

a) 

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 
(not including same-sex couples), 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. 

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(1) of the LPD guarantees to everyone the right to different levels of education 
(pre-school,  primary,  secondary  and  higher  education  and  professional  training)  under 
equal conditions. The protected grounds are enshrined in Article 2(1): race, skin colour, 
ancestry,  citizenship,  national  affiliation  or  ethnic  origin,  language,  religious  or  political 
beliefs,  gender,  gender  identity,  sexual  orientation,116  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 foreign nationals, asylum seekers, refugees and migrants also have the 
right to education and that they also enjoy protection from discrimination under the LPD. 

The  LPD  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 

116  This provision does not mean that children will not be protected if they are exposed to different treatment 
on the basis of their parents’ same-sex relationship – e.g. if they are exposed to hate speech, humiliating 
treatment, etc. The legal framework only allows differences in property and social status due to the fact that 
Serbia does not have a law on registered partnership and does not recognise same-sex marriage.  

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
their  attendance  of  classes  and  participation  in  other  educational  activities;  and  to 
categorise pupils on the basis of personal characteristics, maltreat them and unwarrantedly 
differentiate  among  them  in  other  ways  and  treat  them  in  an  unequal  manner  (Article 
19(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(3)). 

The Law on the Fundamentals of the Education System and Upbringing 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 based on social justice and the principle of equal opportunities 
without discrimination (Article 7(1)). This provision is further articulated in a Regulation on 
the  detailed  criteria  for  the  recognition  of  forms  of  discrimination  perpetrated  by  an 
employee, child, student or third party in an educational institution.117 In 2018, the Ministry 
finally  adopted  a  rulebook  on  the  conduct  of  the  educational  institution  in  a  case  of 
discrimination or discriminatory behavior.118 

Article 3(1) guarantees everyone the right to education. Citizens of the Republic of Serbia 
are equal with regard to exercising their rights to education. The Law guarantees the right 
to education for foreign citizens, stateless persons and persons seeking Serbian citizenship 
under  the  same  conditions  and  in  the  manner  prescribed  for  citizens  of  the  Republic  of 
Serbia (Article 3(5)). It also contains Article 110, which prohibits discrimination, direct or 
indirect, on any ground and specifically includes migrant status. Article 100(2) 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. Pupils 
are protected from discrimination, violence, abuse and neglect (Article 79(4)). According 
to  Article  99(3),  educational  institutions  are  required  to  adopt  anti-discrimination 
programmes and to establish anti-discrimination teams. 

The LPDPD, in Article 18, prohibits discrimination on the grounds of disability at all levels 
of upbringing and education. Discrimination exists in particular in the following forms: 1) 
denial  of  admission  of  a  child  of  preschool  age,  pupil  or  student  with  a  disability  to  an 
educational  institution  that  corresponds  to  his  or  her  previously  acquired  knowledge  or 
educational  possibilities;  2)  exclusion  from  an  educational  institution  that  is  already 
attended by a preschool child, pupil or student with a disability for reasons related to his 
or her disability; and 3) setting non-disability  as a special  condition for admission to an 
educational institution, including submission of a health certificate and prior examination 
of  psychophysical  abilities,  unless  that  condition  is  determined  in  accordance  with  the 
regulations governing the field of education.  

117  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. 

118  Rulebook on the conduct of the institution in a case of discrimination or discriminatory behavior (Pravilnik o 

postupanju ustanove u slučaju diskriminacije ili diskriminatorskog ponašanja), Official Gazette of the 
Republic of Serbia, No. 65/2018, 1 September 2019.  

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other  specific  laws  regulate  different  levels  of  education  (pre-school,119  primary,120 
secondary121  and  higher  education)122  and  all  contain  provisions  on  the  prohibition  of 
discrimination  which  cover  different  grounds.  However,  Article  7(1)  of  the  Law  on  the 
Fundamentals  of  the  Education  System  and  Upbringing  applies  as  a  systemic  law,  in 
addition to Article 2(1) of the LPD, which means that  all grounds covered in the two EU 
directives are covered by these laws. 

a) 

Pupils with disabilities 

In  Serbia,  the  general  approach  to  education  for  pupils  with  disabilities  gives  rise  to 
problems. 

The  Law  on  the  Fundamentals  of  Education  System  and  Upbringing  recognises  inclusive 
education 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 group or school, in compliance with this and special laws (Article 
3(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. There are 41 schools 
in Serbia for children with developmental impairments (23 primary schools with pre-school 
departments, 17 schools for primary and secondary education with pre-school departments 
and one secondary school).123  

Those pupils with disabilities who are integrated into the mainstream school system need 
special support and an individual teaching plan. Children with disabilities may be enrolled 
in special schools based on the opinion of an intersectoral commission and with the consent 
of  their  parents  (Article  20).  Many  schools  are  still  inaccessible  and  there  is  a  lack  of 
transportation, accessible books and teaching equipment, which can  make it difficult  for 
children to attend lessons or prevent them from doing so.124 The Committee on the Rights 
of  People  with  Disabilities  underlines  the  need  to  secure  access  to  inclusive  and  quality 
education and to ensure that reasonable accommodation, in accordance with established 
individual education plans, is provided in mainstream education. It also recommends that 
teachers and other education professionals receive training on inclusive education and that 
all secondary and tertiary education facilities be made accessible.125 The Committee on the 

119  The principles of pre-school education include, inter alia, equal rights and access to all forms of pre-school 

education without discrimination on the basis of gender, social, cultural, ethnic, religious or other affiliation, 
place of residence or domicile, material or health conditions or disability, as well as on other grounds, in 
accordance with the law (Article 4(2)(1)). Although it is not explicitly covered, this provision also applies in 
a case involving sexual orientation. Law on Pre-School Education (Zakon o predškolskom vaspitanju i 
obrazovanju), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 18/2010, 101/2017, 113/2017, 95/2018, 
10/2019, 11 April 2010.  

120  Law on Primary Education (Zakon o osnovnom obrazovanju i vaspitanju), Official Gazette of the Republic of 
Serbia, Nos. 55/2013, 101/2017, 27/2018, 19/2019, 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. 

121  Law on Secondary Education (Zakon o srednjem obrazovanju i vaspitanju), Official Gazette of the Republic 
of Serbia, Nos. 55/2013, 101/2017, 27/2018, 25 June 2013. Article 2(1)(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. Sexual orientation has not been explicitly 
mentioned, but it is covered by systemic educational law – the Law on the Fundamentals of Education and 
Upbringing.  

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

Nos. 88/2017, 27/2018, 73/2018, 67/2019, 7 October 2017. This Law recognises the principle of respect for 
human rights and freedoms, including prohibition of all forms of discrimination and equality of higher 
education institutions, regardless of their founder or form of ownership (Article 4(7) and Article 4(10)). 
123  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. 

124  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. 

125  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. 50.  

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rights of the Child further emphasises that Serbia must strengthen its efforts to promote 
inclusive education for all children and ensure that adequate human, financial and technical 
support  is  available  to  implement  the  provisions  outlined  in  the  Law.  It  should  also 
guarantee  all  children  with  disabilities  the  right  to  inclusive  education  in  mainstream 
schools  independent  of  parental  consent;  train  and  assign  specialised  teachers  and 
professionals in integrated classes to give individual support and due attention to children 
with  learning  difficulties;  and  address  the  shortage  of  speech  therapists  and  qualified 
professionals for children with mental and psychosocial disabilities.126 

It must be concluded that the application of educational laws and inclusive practices is very 
underdeveloped,  and  that  there  is  still  a  tendency  to  exclude  pupils,  especially  those  in 
social  welfare  institutions,  from  the  education  system.127  The  Commissioner  for  the 
Protection  of  Equality  also  acknowledges  that  people  with  disabilities  are  discriminated 
against in the area of  education. In 2019, a number  of complaints to the Commissioner 
related to the lack of transportation for, or services of assistants to escort, children with 
disabilities.  The  Commissioner  issued  119  general  recommendations  to  local  self-
government units to take measures and activities to ensure the provision of personal escort 
services for children with disabilities.128 

The Law on Textbooks129 prescribes that textbooks cannot include discriminatory content 
and  should  foster  diversity  and  tolerance.  The  Law  also  recognises  the  publishing  of 
textbooks in all accessible formats: audio, audiovisual, large print and Braille (Article 12(5) 
and  the  use  of  special  books  for  children  with  developmental  disabilities.  Article  6(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. 

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

1)  

2)  

3)  

to  deny  pupils  and  students  with  disabilities  admission  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  pre-school  children,  pupils  or  students  for 
admission to an educational institution for a particular subject or group of subjects, their 
artistic affinities or special talents (paragraph 1); and the organisation of specific forms of 
teaching or education for pupils and pre-school 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 (paragraph 2).  

126  Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations on the combined second and third periodic 

reports for Serbia, 7 March 2017, para. 55 b) and c). 

127  Belgrade Center for Human Rights (2019) Human Rights in Serbia in 2018 – law, practice and international 
human rights standards (Ljudska prava u Srbiji u 2018 - pravo, praksa i međunarodni standardi ljudskih 
prava), Belgrade, p. 291.  

128  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 10. 

129  Law on Textbooks (Zakon o udžbenicima), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 27/2018, 14 April 

2018.  

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Article 19(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 as of 2019 the initiative had not yet received support.130 

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.  Roma  children  are  still  victims  of  prejudice  and  various  forms  of 
discrimination, including segregation, as one of the most serious violations of the right of 
children  to  education  (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).131 

In  its  Serbia  2019  Report,  the  European  Commission  underlined  that  only  9 %  of 
marginalised  Roma  children  attended  kindergartens  (in  comparison  with  28 %  of  non-
Roma children). Drop-out rates remain high, especially for Roma girls, and only 67 % of 
Roma youth complete secondary education (in comparison with 96 % of non-Roma youth). 
The percentage of those completing tertiary education remains extremely low.132  

In addition, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination observes that, 
while  different  measures  (scholarships  and  other  supporting  measures)  have  been 
introduced to support Roma children, there is still a significantly lower percentage of Roma 
children enrolled in all levels of education in comparison with the general population. The 
Committee  is  also  concerned  about  the  practice  of  segregation  in  education  in  schools 
where  most  children  are  Roma,  or  where  they  are  placed  in  Roma-only  classes.133 
Therefore, the Committee recommended that Serbia should put an end to de facto state 
school  segregation  of  Roma  children  and  ensure  access  to  quality  education  for  them, 
including through anti-racism and human rights training for school staff, awareness-raising 
efforts targeting parents and increased employment of Roma teachers.134  

Some organisations identified main problems in the realisation of the right to education of 
Roma  pupils,  such  as  a  lack  of  strategy  and  cooperation  at  all  levels;  employment  of 
parents as a condition for enrolment in pre-school institutions; lack of personal documents, 
databases and systemic measures for parents who do not enrol their children  in school; 
low  coverage  of  early  childhood  education  programmes;  and  discrimination,  non-
motivation  and  neglect.  Educational  workers  do  not  have  the  will  or  skills  to  work  with 
children from vulnerable groups.  

In  addition,  a  lack  of  community  will  to  accept  poor  and  Roma  families  and  children  as 
legitimate  participants  in  school  and  community  life  is  very  much  present.135  In  its 

130  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, opinion No. 1080/2011, 3 November 2011. See also 

Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 
Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 10. 

131  European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs (2017), Towards a 

comprehensive EU protection system for minorities, available at: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2017)596802. 

132  European Commission, Serbia 2019 Report, Strasbourg, 29 May 2019, p. 29. 
133  United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the 
combined second to fifth periodic reports of Serbia, CERD/C/SRB/CO/2-5, 3 January 2018, para. 20. 

134  UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined second 

to fifth periodic reports of Serbia, CERD/C/SRB/CO/2-5, 3 January 2018, para. 21. 

135  UNICEF and Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction Unit, Policy Impact Analysis: Providing additional 

support to students of vulnerable groups in a pre-university education (Analiza uticaja politika: Pružanje 
dodatne podrške učenicima iy osetljivih grupa u preduniverzitetskom obrazovanju), available at: 
http://socijalnoukljucivanje.gov.rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Prilog-3-Pruzanje-dodatne-podrske-
ucenicima-iz-osetljivih-grupa-u-preduniverzitetskom-obrazovanju.pdf.  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
concluding  observations  on  Serbia,  the  Committee  on  the  Elimination  of  Racial 
Discrimination expressed its concern about the fact that the percentage of Roma children 
enrolled in all levels of education is lower than in the general population. Furthermore, the 
Committee  is  very  concerned  by  reports  that  one  third  of  people  who  are  registered 
homeless  are  Roma,  and  that  60 000  Roma,  Ashkali  and  Egyptians  live  in  substandard 
conditions  in  hundreds  of  informal  settlements,  often  lacking  access  to  basic  services, 
including drinking water and sanitation.136 

A  positive  trend  is  that  in  2018,  there  were  175  pedagogical  assistants  in  local  self-
government  units  contributing  to  the  inclusion  of  Roma  students  in  education  and 
supporting them to achieve better results, and in 2019 that number increased to 250.137  

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 
the  supply  of  goods  and  services  as  formulated  in  the  Racial  Equality  Directive. 
Discrimination is prohibited in the provision of services on all grounds,138 but there is no 
provision expressly prohibiting discrimination in access to and the supply of goods on any 
ground. However, as the LPD has a broad application, judicial interpretation of this article 
is needed for the protection in access to and supply of goods. it can be claimed that this 
situation is covered by Article 4(1) of the LPD.  

Article 17(1) of the LPD prohibits discrimination in the provision of public services but not 
goods, and it does not include housing. It states that discrimination is considered to have 
taken 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’.  The  term  ‘public  services’ 
refers to services available to the public (whether provided by private or public authorities, 
entities, companies, etc.). 

Furthermore, Article 17(2) of the LPD 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. Article 13(1) prohibits discrimination based on disability in relation to the 
availability of services and access to public premises. Article 13(2) 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(3) explains what is meant by 
premises and public areas; the meaning is the same as in Article 17(2) of the LPD. Article 

136  UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined second 

to fifth periodic reports of Serbia, CERD/C/SRB/CO/2-5, 3 January 2018, para. 22.  

137  Atanackovic, I., Education of Roma in Serbia: The Hard Way from Discrimination to Integration 

(Obrazovanje Roma u Srbiji: Težak put od diskriminacije do integracije), Danas, 8 December 2019, 
available at: https://www.danas.rs/drustvo/obrazovanje-roma-u-srbiji-tezak-put-od-diskriminacije-do-
integracije/. 

138  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 and any other ground. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13(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: 

- 

- 

- 

the 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  endangers  the  life  or  health  of  people 
with disabilities or other people; and 
the refusal to make technical adaptations to facilities that are necessary to provide 
services to people with disabilities (Article 13(5)). 

Article 14 prescribes that an increase in costs for services that is proportional to the costs 
of the provision of services to meet the specific needs of people with disabilities, as well as 
activities  that  are  intended  to  eliminate  and  combat  new  forms  of  discrimination  in  this 
area, cannot be deemed to be discrimination. In other words, it is permissible to charge 
more  for  services  that  are  adapted  to  the  needs  of  people  with  disabilities.  The  Law 
classifies  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 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(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(3)). 

a)   Distinction between goods and services available publicly or privately 

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

The LPDPD also prohibits discrimination based on disability in relation to the availability of 
services and access to public premises. Article 13(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 2018, 261 complaints (27.6 % 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 and accessibility to public buildings,139  
whereas in 2019, that number decreased to 53 (7.5 % of all complaints).140  

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(1) of the 

139  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2019), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2018, Belgrade, p. 247. 

140  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 298. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 that are covered by part III of the Law, which 
means that housing is also protected; it is interpreted as such by the Commissioner for the 
Protection  of  Equality.  However,  further  judicial  interpretation  by  the  court  would  be 
necessary.  The  Advisory  Committee  on  the  Framework  Convention  for  the  Protection  of 
National Minorities noted that while housing is protected, further clarifications still appear 
to  be  necessary  as  regards  the  scope  of  protection  provided  by  the  LPD  in  the  fields  of 
housing  and  social  protection.141  Therefore,  the  Advisory  Committee  recommended  that 
the  authorities  take  all  necessary  steps  to  ensure  that  the  wording  of  the  LPD  does  not 
prevent persons from national minorities from bringing claims of discrimination in the fields 
of housing and social protection, and amend the Law if necessary to achieve this.142 

There  is  a  special  law  that  deals  with  housing:  the  Law  on  Housing  and  Building 
Maintenance.143 This Law regulates issues of housing usage, eviction and housing support. 
The Law establishes that the municipality has the jurisdiction to carry out a forced eviction 
if an individual moves into an apartment or the 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. The eviction of people from a building that has been built illegally is carried out 
when it is considered to be necessary and justified in the public interest, primarily to protect 
the  lives  and  health  of  people  and  for  the  protection  of  property,  or  where  land  is 
earmarked for the construction of buildings of public interest.144  

a) 

Trends and patterns regarding housing segregation for Roma 

In Serbia, there are patterns of housing segregation and discrimination against the Roma, 
who face discrimination and exclusion in all spheres of life. Unemployment is particularly 
high  among  the  Roma  (36 %),  and  those  who  are  employed  are  usually  in  low-paid 
positions.145 Poverty is widespread, and living conditions are particularly appalling in  the 
informal settlements where Roma who are displaced from Kosovo or forcibly returned from 
abroad  mainly  live.  They  tend  to  move  towards  bigger  cities  where  they  have  more 
opportunities, and they usually live in informal settlements on peripheral sites. 

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination expressed its concern that one 
third of people registered homeless in Serbia are Roma and that 60 000 Roma, Ashkali and 
Egyptians live in substandard conditions in hundreds of informal settlements, often lacking 
access to basic services.146 The Committee also expressed its concern that forced evictions 
from settlements  continue to take place without consultation, due process of law or the 
possibility of alternative accommodation. In some cases, other essential services such as 
ambulances  or  public  transport  are  not  available.  Many  such  people  are  isolated  from 
employment, schools and medical centres.  

141  Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Third Opinion on 

Serbia, adopted on 28 November 2013, ACFC/OP/III(2013)006, Strasbourg, 23 June 2014, p. 7. 
142  Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Fourth 

Periodical Report by Serbia, September 2018, ACFC/SR/IV(2018)001, Belgrade, p. 115.  

143  Law on Housing and Building Maintenance, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 104/2016, 23 

December 2016. 

144  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. 

145  European Commission, Serbia 2019 Report, Strasbourg, 29 May 2019, p. 30, available at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/20190529-serbia-report.pdf 

146  UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined second 

to fifth periodic report of Serbia, CERD/C/SRB/CO/2-5, 3 January 2018, p. 22. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
According  to  data  provided  by  municipalities,  there  are  583  informal/illegal  Roma 
settlements  in  Serbia.147  Thus,  many  Roma  live  in  households  that  have  no  access  to 
electricity, drinking water or connection to the sewage system.148 

There  has  been  a  case,  in  one  city  in  central  Serbia,  in  which  a  Roma  settlement  was 
enclosed through the construction of a concrete wall. Due to the importance of this case 
and its detrimental  effect on  the Roma, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality 
filed a lawsuit  under Article 6 of the LPD,  which prohibits direct discrimination, with the 
competent court. This case has not been yet resolved. 

147  Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review, third cycle, Report of the Republic of Serbia, 31 October 

2017, para. 87.  

148  European Commission, Serbia 2019 Report, Strasbourg, 29 May 2019, p. 30, available at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/20190529-serbia-report.pdf. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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(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. It prescribes in Article 22(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. 

Finally, 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 
achieved the best results on an assessment of psychological and physical abilities that are 
directly related to the job requirements, and the adoption of incentive measures to fast-
track the employment of people with disabilities, in accordance with the law governing the 
employment of people with disabilities. 

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 defined in Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC. However, the LPD 
provides for a somewhat different exception by stipulating in Article 18(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.149 This provision is 
unclear, as it is not entirely certain what type of conduct it 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. However, there is still no relevant case law on this issue. 

149  Law on Churches and Religious Organisations, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 36/2006, 27 

April 2006. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Law on Churches and Religious Organisations recognises traditional churches150 and 
religious communities,151 confessional communities152 and other religious organisations153 
(Article 4). 

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  that  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 that 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(2) further establishes that 
the  performance  of  priestly  duties  and  religious  services  is  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 to 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 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)  
to be hired for or dismissed from a job if the post is in a state entity or in an entity financed 
by the state. Religious institutions can discriminate if that 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(2)). In order to promote religious freedoms and education, the state 
may offer financial support to religious educational institutions which are not included in 

150  Article 10(1) defines ‘traditional churches’ as those which have a centuries-long historical continuity and 

whose legal subjectivity was acquired on the basis of special laws. They are: the Serbian Orthodox Church, 
the Roman Catholic Church, the Slovak Evangelical Church, the Christian Reformed Church and the 
Evangelical Christian Church. 

151  ‘Traditional religious communities’ are those which have a centuries-long historical continuity and whose 

legal subjectivity was acquired on the basis of special laws. They are: the Islamic religious community and 
the Jewish religious community (Article 10(2)). 

152  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. 

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

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the education system. Religious education institutions have organisational and curricular 
autonomy (Article 37(1)). 

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)  of  Directive 
2000/78/EC). 

Article  16(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. 

However, exemption from discrimination law is stipulated in Article 23 of the LPDPD, which 
prescribes that the selection of candidates without disabilities who achieved the best results 
on an assessment of psychological and physical abilities which are directly related to the 
job requirements applies mostly to the armed forces and the police sector. 

4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) 

a)  Discrimination on the ground of nationality 

In  Serbia,  national  law  does  not  include  exceptions  relating  to  differences  in  treatment 
based on nationality. Article 2(2) of the LPD explains that the terms ‘person’ and ‘everyone’ 
are used in the Law to refer to an individual who resides on the territory of the Republic of 
Serbia or a territory under its jurisdiction, regardless of whether that individual is a national 
of Serbia or another state, or a stateless person, as well as to any legal entity registered 
or operating on Serbian territory. 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 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 enjoyed only by citizens of the Republic of Serbia.154  

In Serbia, citizenship is explicitly mentioned as a protected ground in Article 2(1) of the 
LPD. There have not been many cases that relate to discrimination based on citizenship. 
In 2018, only four complaints (in comparison  with  10 in 2016, seven in 2017 and 12 in 
2018)  were  submitted  to  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  claiming 
discrimination based on citizenship.155 In one case, the Commissioner found that there had 
been discrimination based on Croatian nationality, as a  result of which a misdemeanour 
charge  was  initiated.  In  this  case,  a  client  was  exposed  to  insulting  and  humiliating 
comments in a bank office by another client, while officers failed to react and protect her.156 

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 

154  For example, Article 38(2) of the Constitution stipulates that Serbian citizens may not be expelled or 

deprived of their citizenship or the right to change it. In addition, Article 52(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. 

155  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 298. 

156  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 225. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
distinction  between  nationalities  and  ethnic  groups.  This  division  has  become  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 who 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. 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, an overlap between ‘nationality’ and ‘ethnic origin’ can occur. However, 
this  is  a  rather  theoretical  debate,  as  all  those  grounds  –  citizenship,  national  affiliation 
and ethnic origin – are covered by Article 2(1) of the LPD. In other words, citizenship is an 
explicitly  protected  ground  under  the  LPD,  and  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of 
Equality has an explicit mandate to deal with discrimination based on citizenship as well as 
on national affiliation. 

In Serbia, the ethnic minority which is considered to be most discriminated against is the 
Roma.157  The  UN  Human  Rights  Committee  expressed  its  concern  in  2017  that  despite 
Serbia’s efforts, the Roma continue to suffer from widespread discrimination and exclusion, 
unemployment, forced eviction and de facto housing and educational segregation.158 The 
Committee was particularly concerned about the continued difficulties faced by internally 
displaced  Roma159  in  relation  to:  (a)  registering  births  and  their  place  of  residence  and 
acquiring identification documents, including as a result of a narrow interpretation of the 
law on permanent and temporary residence; (b) being integrated into Serbian society; and 
(c) the poor conditions reported in collective centres, where internally displaced people are 
accommodated by the Commissariat for Refugees and Migration. The situation remains the 
same  in  2019,  despite  the  fact  that  Serbia  adopted  certain  measures  to  prevent 
discrimination against the Roma.160  

Finally,  race  and  colour  are  also  recognised  in  the  LPD  as  particular  grounds  for 
discrimination. It would be theoretically possible to establish indirect race discrimination if 
nationals  of  an  African  decent  were  treated  less  favourably.  However,  those  grounds  of 
discrimination  are  rarely  invoked  in  practice,  and  such  cases  are  usually  treated  as 
involving discrimination based on asylum and migration status. In 2019, two complaints 
submitted to the Commissioner claimed to involve discrimination based on race.161  

157  See, for example, European Movement in Serbia, European Policy Centre (2017), Attitudes of citizens on 
their satisfaction with public services in primary health care (Ставови грађана о задовољству јавним 
услугама у примарној здравственој заштити – Приказ налаза истраживања), Belgrade. This research 
shows that the Roma have more difficulty in accessing essential health services than other citizens. They 
are more exposed to hate speech than other citizens: Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2018), 
Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality for 2017, Belgrade, p. 88. In 
addition, Roma children are perceived as experiencing the most discrimination. See National Organisation of 
Persons with Disabilities of Serbia, Position of children with disabilities and their rights in the Republic of 
Serbia (Положај деце са сметњама у развоју и инвалидитетом и остваривање њихових права у 
Републици Србији), Belgrade, p. 21. 

158  CCPR, Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Serbia, CCPR/C/SRB/CO/3, 10 April 2017, 

p. 14. 

159  These Roma have Serbian citizenship and their status is recognised as that of internally displaced persons.  
160  Belgrade Centre for Human Rights (2020), Human Rights in Serbia in 2019 – law, practice and international 
standards of human rights, (Ljudska prava u Srbiji 2019 - pravo, praksa i međunarodni standardi ljudskih 
prava), Belgrade, p. 277-288. 

161  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 298. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.5  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) 
of  Directive  2000/78/EC).  The  LPD  provides  in  Article  16(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(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(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(4)  entitles  employees  with 
disabilities to special protection. Article 22(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. 

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

2000/78) 

4.6.1  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, national law provides for justification for direct discrimination on the ground of 
age. Article 23(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 states 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 occupational requirement, as established 
in  Article  16(3),  can  justify  direct  discrimination  based  on  age.  The  same  provision  is 
contained in Article 21(1) of the Labour Law. 

Finally, the compulsory retirement age is part of social policy and is therefore considered 
not to contravene the LPD. 

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

In 2019, 72 complaints (9.9 %) were submitted to the Commissioner for the Protection of 
Equality claiming age discrimination, in comparison with 116 complaints (16.5 %) in 2018 
and 75 complaints (11.8 %) in 2017.162 Therefore, this ground of discrimination still ranks 
very  highly  –  this  year,  it  was  among  the  top  four  grounds.  The  greatest  number  of 

162  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 297. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
complaints  (43 %)  concerned  discrimination  against  persons  older  than  65;  39 % 
concerned  people  between  the  ages  of  50  and  65;  and  18 %  concerned  discrimination 
against children.163 The majority of complaints concerned discrimination in recruitment and 
work, due to the dominant attitude that older workers are inefficient and non-productive.  

In  2019,  the  Commissioner  issued  a  general  recommendation  to  169  centres  for  social 
work,  due  to  an  increase  in  the  number  of  instances  of  litigation  on  the  basis  of  the 
deprivation  of  legal  capacity  of  elderly  beneficiaries  of  social  centres  as  a  result  of 
prejudices and stereotypes about their ability to protect their own rights and interests.164 
According to the available information obtained by the Commissioner for the Protection of 
Equality,  lawsuits  were  brought  mainly  due  to  the  fact  that  social  work  centres  did  not 
adequately  asses  the  strengths  and  needs  of  older  beneficiaries  before  initiating  the 
procedure  for deprivation of legal capacity and appointing a temporary guardian.  In the 
majority  of  cases,  older  beneficiaries  were  completely  excluded  from  the  procedure  in 
relation to the exercise and protection of their rights. In addition, the accessibility of certain 
centres  for  social  work  was  challenged.165  In  some  cases,  the  Commissioner  found  that 
centres were not guided by the best interests of the beneficiary, nor by the principles of 
least restrictive intervention and the provision of an environment of respect for the dignity 
of the individual.  

b) 

Permitted differences of treatment based on age 

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(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(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. 

4.6.2  Special conditions for young people and older workers  

In Serbia, there are no special conditions set by law for older workers in order to promote 
their vocational integration. 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.166 
The LPD only provides in Article 23(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’. 

However, Article 12(4) of the Labour Law entitles employees under 18 to special protection. 
With  regard  to  younger  workers,  Article  84  lists  jobs  that  are  prohibited  for  employees 
under 18. Therefore, employees who are younger than 16 cannot work in posts that require 

163  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 181. 

164  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 182. 

165  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 100. 

166  The basis for affirmative measures is set out in the Law on Youth, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, 

No. 50/2011, 8 July 2011. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 in 
some specific cases (Article 88). 

Certain  categories  of  workers  can,  exceptionally,  in  circumstances  and  under  conditions 
set out in the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance,167 be entitled to a pension (Article 
7). Under Article 42, those categories are police officers; some categories of employee 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.  

4.6.3  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. 

4.6.4  Retirement  

a) 

State pension age 

In Serbia, there is a state pension age – 65 – at which individuals must begin to collect 
their state pension (Article 19 of the LPDI). However, an employee can decide to submit a 
request to collect an early (reduced) pension. 

If  an  individual  wishes  to  work  beyond  the  state  pension  age,  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 can collect a pension and still work. However, in that case, the pension is not 
a taxable income. 

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.  

Previously,  the  only  system  in  existence  was  the  mandatory  public  pension  system.168 
However,  the  2019  changes  to  the  Law  on  Pension  and  Disability  Insurance  introduced 
voluntary pension funds and pension plans.169 

c) 

State-imposed mandatory retirement ages 

In Serbia, there is a state-imposed mandatory retirement age which is generally applicable. 
According to Article 19 of the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance, the retirement age 

167  Law on Pension and Disability Insurance (Zakon o penzijskom i invalidskom osiguranju), Official Gazette of 
the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 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, 73/2018, 2 April 2003. 

168  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, Nos. 85/2005 and 31/2011, 
13 October 2005. 

169  Amendments to the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance (Izmene i dopune Zakona o penzijskom i 
invalidskom osiguranju), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 86/2019, 14 December 2019.  

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
is  65  years,  with  a  minimum  of  15  years  of  pension  contributions,  or  after  45  years  of 
contributions. 

When an employee in the public sector reaches 65, it is not possible for them to continue 
to work and defer their pension. However, the retiree can continue to work in the form of 
a fixed-term service contract. In addition, in the public sector, the mandatory retirement 
age for both sexes is 65. It is possible to extend this period to cover 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 a retirement age (or an age at 
which the termination of an employment contract is possible) by contract and/or collective 
bargaining and/or unilaterally. 

In practice, in both the private and public sectors, some women are forced to retire when 
they reach the age of 62, despite the fact that it is their right to choose if they want to 
retire  or  to  work  until  65.  The  main  reasons  for  this  common  practice  include  a  high 
unemployment rate and the restructuring of some private firms, mostly those  that were 
privatised.  

e) 

Employment rights applicable to all workers irrespective of age 

The Labour Law  applies equally to the public and private  sectors. It protects employees 
against  dismissal  and  applies  to  all  workers  irrespective  of  age,  until  they  reach  the 
mandatory retirement age. However, during the deferral period, workers are still protected 
by Article 16(2) of the LPD, which protects from discrimination a person who is employed 
and  also  ‘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 20  of the  Labour Law  prohibits any discrimination in relation to dismissal. 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  in  respect  of 
mandatory 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 an earlier pension is a possibility and not a requirement. The automatic termination 
of employment contracts for employees who meet the conditions as regards age and the 
minimum  number  of  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  that  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 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
conditions for both sexes. However, there is an exception that allows 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. 

4.6.5  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. Article 155 
stipulates  that  a  redundancy  plan  has  to  include  the  following  information:  the  reasons 
that the work of the employees is no longer needed; the total number of employees with 
the  employer;  the  number  of  redundant  employees  and  the  jobs  they  perform;  their 
professional qualifications, age and number of years of insurance contributions; the criteria 
for establishing redundancy; measures for finding alternative employment for redundant 
employees  such  as  transfer  to  other  work  assignments,  employment  with  another 
employer, retraining or additional training, part-time work (but not less than half a full-
time  position)  or  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. 

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. 

4.7  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(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(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  that  are  introduced  in  order  to  achieve  full  equality  for 
individuals  or  groups  of  individuals  who  are  in  a  substantially  unequal  position  in 
comparison with other citizens. Other restrictions of the principle of equality are not allowed 
by the Constitution. 

4.8  Any other exceptions 

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

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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(4) of the Constitution recognises that  special measures that are introduced in 
order  to  achieve  the  full  equality  of  individuals  or  groups  of  individuals  who  are  in  a 
substantially unequal position in comparison with other citizens shall not be deemed to be 
discrimination.  This  provision  applies  to  all  groups  that  are  identified  as  being  in  a 
substantially unequal position in society, including LGBTQ+ people. 

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 that they can enjoy and exercise their 
rights under the same conditions as the general population (Article 8(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(2)). In addition, Article 23(2) stipulates 
that incentive measures should be introduced to speed up the employment of people with 
disabilities,  in  accordance  with  the  law  regulating  the  employment  of  persons  with 
disabilities. 

b)  Quotas in employment for people with disabilities 

In Serbia, national law provides a quota for the employment of people with disabilities. 

The National Action Plan for Employment for 2019 recognises persons with disabilities as 
a less employable category of persons,170 while the Law on Professional Rehabilitation and 
Employment of Persons with Disabilities introduces a quota system. Article 24 establishes 
a duty on 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(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(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. 

According to Article 26, an  employer can be relieved of this obligation if they  pay, on a 
monthly basis, a sum of at least 50 % of the average salary per employee for every person 
with  a  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 
Persons with Disabilities.171 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.  

170  National Action Plan for Employment for 2019 (Nacionalni akcioni plan zapošljavanja za 2019), Official 

Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 105/2018, 29 December 2019. 

171  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. 101/2016, 24 December 2016.  

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
It is important to underline that this subsidy applies only to people who have been officially 
recognised  as  having  a  disability  by  the  National  Employment  Service,  which  assesses 
disability in the context of employment.172 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. 

The  Tax  Administration  controls  the  fulfilment  of  the  obligation  to  employ  persons  with 
disabilities on a monthly basis. If an  employer violates the above-mentioned provisions, 
the Tax Administration determines the amount to be paid to the budget for the Fund for 
Professonal  Rehabilitation  and  Employment  of  Persons  with  Disabilities.  In  addition,  the 
employer is obliged to pay a fine of between RSD 200 000 (EUR 1 700) and RSD 1 000 000 
(EUR 8 500). 

172  This system applies only to persons with disabilities and in the form of a quota system. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 (the LPD, the LPDPD and the Gender Equality Act (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 first special anti-discrimination procedure in Serbia was estabished by the  LPDPD 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. First, 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.173  

for  pecuniary  and  non-pecuniary  damages 

incurred  due  to 

The LPDPD in Article 44 provides that revision, a special appellate review for legal questions 
and serious breaches of procedure, is always available in cases of discrimination (with no 
time limit). This law allows for 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.174 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, 
although the court must decide on the request not within 48 hours, but within three days. 
It further provides several positive solutions to protect victims of discrimination. First, it 
provides that the proceedings will be conducted swiftly (Article 41(3)). Secondly, Article 

173  In this complaint, the rules in the Law on Contracts and Torts apply, including the statute of limitations 

(Article 376). See Law on Contracts and Torts (Zakon o obligacionim odnosima), Official Gazette of SFRY, 
Nos. 29/1978, 39/1985, 45/1989 – CC, 57/1989, Official Gazette of SRY, Nos. 31/1993, 22/1999, 23/1999, 
35/1999, 44/1999, Official Gazette of SCG, No. 1/2003 – Constitutional Charter, 1 July 1978. 

174  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(2)). 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
45  of  the  LPD  recognises  a  reverse  burden  of  proof,  which  is  very  important  bearing  in 
mind that the LPDPD does not recognise it. 

The provisions of the Gender Equality Act 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. Those additional measures that are envisaged for 
gender have not been applied to 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 18 times; while in 2015 and 2016 
no  new  strategic  litigation  was  brought,  in  2017  and  2018  four  litigation  lawsuits  were 
initiated, and in 2019 there was only one).175 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  improving  access  to  justice.  In  2018,  the  Commissioner  filed  four 
lawsuits.176 In one case, in Krusevac, a concrete wall was built next to the Roma settlement 
and  parallel  to  the  street,  so  that  the  Roma  settlement  was  actually  enclosed.  Another 
lawsuit concerned an ill worker who was dismissed on the ground that she could only work 
day shifts due to illness. A third and a fourth lawsuit were initiated against authors who 
used humiliating words against  victims  of  domestic violence  and members  of the LGBTI 
population in their texts. 

Labour  dispute  –  As  the  Labour  Law  prohibits  discrimination  in  Articles  18  to  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 (Articles 436 to 441). Article 
438 prescribes that in labour-related litigation, 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 rule: if, during proceedings concerning 

175  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2018), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 
Protection of Equality for 2017, Belgrade, p. 169; Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2019), 
Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality for 2018, Belgrade, p. 198; 
Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 
Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 258. 

176  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2019), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2018, Belgrade, p. 199. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
illegal termination, the court determines that there were grounds for termination but the 
employer  has  not  complied  with  the  procedure,  the  court  shall  reject  the  employee’s 
request to return to work and they will be awarded the equivalent of six monthly salary 
payments in damages. 

Mediation  –  Тhe  Law  on  the  Peaceful  Resolution  of  Labour  Disputes177  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.  Individual labour disputes  are disputes  about minimum 
wages,  termination  of  employment  and  the  payment  of  a  minimum  wage,  as  well  as 
discrimination and bullying (Article 3). 

Mediation is also prescribed by the Law on Mediation.178 This law made some improvements 
and advancements to the existing system, which dates from 2005, and brought changes 
in respect of the refinement and development of existing solutions that have proven to be 
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; the privacy of the procedure; confidentiality, neutrality, 
and  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 duration 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 a case is suitable for mediation. 
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  no  agreement  has  been 
reached through the mediation process, the complaint procedure before the Commissioner 
is continued. 

The mediation procedure is conducted by a mediator  who is 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 that they meet the criteria and the closely defined requirements that have been 
established by the Commissioner. 

In 2015, mediation was offered and accepted for the first time in two cases. While in 2016 
there were no cases of mediation, in 2017 it was offered in one case.179 However, in 2018 
mediation was offered in 88 cases as a proper way to complete the case.180 In 2019, the 
trend returned to the same level as in 2017,  with mediation being proposed in only one 
case.181 

177  Law on the Peaceful Resolution of Labour Disputes (Zakon o mirnom rešavanju radnih sporova), Official 

Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 125/2004, 104/2009, 50/2018, 22 November 2004. 

178  Law on Mediation (Zakon o posredovanju u rešavanju sporova), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, 

No. 55/2014, 23 May 2014. 

179  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2018), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2017, Belgrade, p. 7. 

180  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2019), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2018, Belgrade, p. 268. 

181  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 92. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misdemeanour  procedure  –  This  procedure  is  regulated  by  a  special  law.182  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.  The  LPD 
makes provision for several misdemeanours, which are regulated in 11 articles (Articles 50 
to  60).  In  2018,  the  Commissioner 
for 
discrimination.183  In  two  cases,  a  misdemeanour  charge  was  issued  for  discrimination 
based on sex and family status in employment, while in one case a misdemeanour charge 
was issued for discrimination against Roma.  

issued  three  misdemeanour  charges 

The  LPDPD  also  makes  provisions  for  several  misdemeanours  (Articles  46  to  52a) 
concerning people with disabilities. 

Criminal  procedure  –  The  criminal  law  is  set  out  in  the  Criminal  Code,  which  contains 
several provisions relating to discrimination: 

- 

- 
- 

- 

- 

Article 128 covers the violation of equality. In 2016, an amendment to the criminal 
Code  expanded  the  prohibited  grounds  of  discrimination  to  cover  disability,  sexual 
orientation and gender identity;184 
Article 129 covers 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. 

In  2019,  one  criminal  charge  was  submitted  by  the  Commissioner  for  hate  speech  and 
advocating hatred against persons with disabilities.185  

Under Article 54a of the Criminal Code, racial, religious, national and ethnic hatred, as well 
as  hatred  based  on  sex,  sexual  orientation  and  gender  identity,  can  be  considered  to 
constitute  aggravating  circumstances.  However,  this  is  rarely  applied  in  practice.  ECRI 
welcomed  the  introduction  of  this  provision,  as  it  was  intended  to  improve  protections 
against hate crime. However, ECRI found that the application of the legislation against hate 
speech and violent hate crime was inefficient and that ‘there is no decisive action against 
the activities of racist, homophobic and transphobic hooligan groups’.186 In order to address 
the  problem  of  the  under-reporting  of  hate  speech,  and  given  that  it  is  increasingly 
disseminated on the internet, it is necessary to provide police officers and prosecutors with 
specialist knowledge and technical tools in order to conduct investigations in an efficient 
manner.187  Therefore,  since  2016,  many  anti-discrimination  training  sessions  for  police 
officers were held by the Commissioner with the support of the Organization for Security 

182  Law on Misdemeanours, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 65/2013, 13/2016, 25 July 2013. 
183  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 92. 

184  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, Article 9. 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. 

185  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 125. 

186  ECRI, Report on Serbia (fifth monitoring cycle), Council of Europe, adopted on 22 March 2017, p. 10. 
187  ECRI, Report on Serbia (fifth monitoring cycle), Council of Europe, adopted on 22 March 2017, p. 23. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) mission in Serbia, together with training sessions for 
judges, public prosecutors and police  officers,  with a view to improving their knowledge 
and skills as required for the efficient prosecution of hate crimes.188 In addition, in all the 
appellate, higher and basic public prosecutors’ offices, in compliance with the Instruction 
of  the  Republic  Public  Prosecutor  A.  No. 802/15  of  December  2015,  special  records  are 
kept  on  the  hate  crimes  committed  within  the  meaning  of  Article  54a  of  the  Criminal 
Code.189  In  September  2018,  the  General  Mandatory  Instruction  of  the  Republic  Public 
Prosecutor O. No. 4/2018 was issued; it envisaged that prosecutors should be designated 
as contact points for hate crimes within the meaning of Article 54a of the Criminal Code in 
all  the  appellate,  higher  and  basic  public  prosecutors’  offices.190  Finally,  in  2018,  the 
Guidelines for Criminal Prosecution of Hate Crimes in the Republic of Serbia were drawn 
up and published as a document intended for public prosecutors.191 

While  there  is  still  no  centralised  official  data  on  hate  crimes,  CSOs  reported  a  slight 
increase of violence and attacks on LGBTIQ+ persons, including within their families.192 

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(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.193  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 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 that there has been 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 on 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. 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  2019,  711  complaints  were  submitted  to  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of 
Equality.194 

188  UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined second 

to fifth periodic reports of Serbia, 12 December 2018, para. 3. 

189  UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined second 

to fifth periodic reports of Serbia, 12 December 2018, para. 4. 

190  UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined second 

to fifth periodic reports of Serbia, 12 December 2018, para. 6. 

191  UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined second 

to fifth periodic reports of Serbia, 12 December 2018, para. 8. 

192  European Commission, Serbia 2019 Report, Brussels, 29 May 2019, p. 28.  
193  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 apply from 1 June 2017. 

194  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 7. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
victims  of  discrimination.  The  jurisdiction  for  cases  of  discrimination  was  transferred  in 
January 2014 from the  basic to the higher courts195 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 under the Labour Law, the more favourable provisions enshrined in the LPD should 
be applied (e.g. the procedure is urgent). 

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 even to 
identify the  real ground for discrimination. In  some cases, judges mix up discrimination 
and bullying, although it must be admitted that this has been happening less since 2017. 
Finally, judges do understand that not every case of unequal treatment can be considered 
to be discrimination, and courts underline in their judgments that such different treatment 
must  be  based  on  personal  characteristics.196  However,  cases  are  still  not  decided  with 
urgency,  and  courts  usually  award  small  amounts 
in  non-pecuniary  damages, 
demonstrating  that  they  still  do  not  understand  the  detrimental  effect  of  discriminatory 
treatment. The same applies to courts for misdemeanours; the range of fines is very small 
(around  EUR 80  to  EUR 800)  in  comparison  with  fines  for  other  acts  covered  by  laws 
outside the discrimination legislation.  

Although  the  procedure  before  the  Commissioner  is  free  of  charge,  for  civil  procedures 
alleged  victims  of  discrimination  need  professional  legal  aid.  The  Law  on  Free  Legal  Aid 
was finally adopted in 2018, and it entered into force in October 2019. It is expected that 
the  Law  will  secure  the  possibility  for  lawyers  and  NGOs  who  specialise  in  dealing  with 
discrimination cases to access public funds for the provision of legal aid. 

Another problem is the length of proceedings. Serbia is facing a huge problem with trials 
that  last  for  an  unreasonably  long  time.  The  Law  on  the  Protection  of  Trials  Within  a 
Reasonable Timeframe aims to provide legal remedies for unreasonably long trials and to 
speed  up  the  procedure,  but  in  2019  it  did  not  achieve  its  purpose.197  There  is  also  a 
problem with the enforcement of court decisions. The courts are subject to organisational 
changes,  and  many  buildings  and  courtrooms  are  not  fully  accessible  for  people  with 
disabilities.  The  only  positive  trend  in  2018  was  the  more  frequent  use  of  mediation  in 
discrimination cases before the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality. This positive 
practice  shows  the  need  to  create  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  their  disposal, 
these  are  not  very  efficient,  as  most  recommendations  are  not  fully  considered  and 

195  Law on the Organisation of the Courts (Zakon o uređenju sudova), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, 
Nos. 116/2008, 104/2009, 101/2010, 31/2011 – other laws, 78/2011, 101/2011, 101/2013, 106/2015, 
40/2015, 13/2016, 108/2016, 113/2017 – CC decision, 87/2018, 88/2018 - CC decision, 22 December 
2008. 

196  See, e.g. Appellate Court in Kragujevac, Gž1 - 1789/18, judgment of 17 January 2019; Higher Court in 

Subotica, P 3217/2018, judgment of 17 January 2019; Court of Cassation, Rev 2. 1283/2019, judgment of 
19 July 2019; Court of Cassation, Rev 2. 1635/2017, judgment of 17 December 2019.  

197  Belgrade Centre for Human Rights (2020), Human Rights in Serbia in 2019 – law, practice and international 
standards of human rights (Ljudska prava u Srbiji 2018 – pravo, praksa i međunarodni standardi ljudskih 
prava), Belgrade, p. 76. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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.  This  was 
criticised by ECRI, which pointed out that the Commissioner still lacks the power to take 
up cases of discrimination ex officio.198 It also remains unclear whether a court is bound 
by  the  Commissioner’s  opinion  on  the  existence  or  otherwise  of  discrimination  in  a 
discrimination case that is brought before it. Current practice illustrates that judges do not 
feel  bound  by  the  Commissioner's  opinion,  even  when  it  comes  to  discussing  on  what 
grounds  they  base  their  decision  and  whether  it  derives  from  the  opinion  of  the 
Commissioner. 

c) 

Number of discrimination cases brought to justice 

In Serbia, statistics on the number of cases related to discrimination that are brought to 
justice are not available. However, statistics are available on the complaints submitted to 
the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality.  As  mentioned  above,  in  2019,  711 
complaints were submitted to this specialised body in comparison with 626 complaints in 
2016, 532 in 2017 and even 947 in 2018.199  

In total, 18 lawsuits have been initiated by the Commissioner since 2010. They concern 
the  following  grounds:  eight  lawsuits  for  discrimination  against  Roma;  three  for  sex 
discrimination; one for discrimination based on sexual orientation; one for discrimination 
based on disability; and five for multiple discrimination.200 The number of cases processed 
each  year  has  not  risen  as  was  the  case  in  previous  years,  and  the  numbers  are  still 
insignificant  in  the  context  of  the  widespread  nature  of  discrimination  in  practice  in  all 
spheres  of  society.  The  reasons  for  this  lie  not  so  much  in  insufficient  awareness  and 
knowledge of discrimination, but in the reluctance 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.  They  are 
usually  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.201 However, even in that case, some 
decisions will not be included as they have been wrongly classified. 

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

Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Engaging in proceedings 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(3) of the LPD provides that a lawsuit may be initiated 
by  an  organisation  that  is  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. 

198  ECRI, Report on Serbia (fifth monitoring cycle), Council of Europe, adopted on 22 March 2017, p. 16. 
199  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2019), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2018, Belgrade, p. 244. 

200  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, Guidelines for strategic litigation (Smernice za strateške 

parnice), Belgrade, September 2018, p. 34. 

201  Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance (Zakon o pristupu informacijama od javnog 

značaja), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 120/2004, 54/2007, 104/2009 and 36/2010, 5 
November 2004. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NGOs are more active in submitting complaints  on behalf  of victims of discrimination to 
the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, but some of them also initiate lawsuits, 
mostly in relation to discrimination against members of the LGBTI and Roma communities. 
When  they  decide  to  initiate  lawsuits,  they  do  so  in  important  cases  that  concern  all 
members  of  a  particular  group,  such  as  a  hate  speech  case  in  which  many  detrimental 
stereotypes and prejudices are expressed in public. 

Trade unions can represent a member in a labour dispute, through a lawyer who has passed 
the bar exam (Article 85(3) of the Civil Procedure Code).  

The LPDPD does not provide for the possibility that organisations can initiate a lawsuit. 

The  LPD  requires  that,  if  discriminatory  treatment  affects  a  particular  individual, 
organisations  may  initiate  a  lawsuit  only  with  the  written  consent  of  that  individual. 
Otherwise, consent is not needed. 

Standing  does  not  depend  on  the  number  of  years  for  which  the  organisation  has  been 
operating. It is important only to consult the statutes of an 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  claims  for  pecuniary  and  non-
pecuniary damages, because they initiate proceedings in order to protect an individual or 
a  group  of  people  who  are  exposed  to  discriminatory  acts,  and  in  order  to  prove 
discrimination. In other words, they cannot seek damages for individuals who are affected 
by discriminatory acts. 

b) 

Engaging in proceedings 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(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 to 217), which is lex generalis to the 
LPD, and which affords the right to intervene in someone else’s anti-discrimination lawsuit 
to those who have legal authority to initiate a lawsuit. Thus, Article 215(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(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,202 which in Article 156 establishes a duty to eliminate danger of injury or loss. 

This  provision  means  that  anyone  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.203  However,  this  possibility  has  not  been  tested  in 
practice in discrimination cases.  

202  Law on Contract and Torts, Official Gazette of the SFRJ, Nos. 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. 

203  Article 156 prescribes that anyone may demand 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 

64 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Although  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  is  not  allowed  to  initiate  actio 
popularis under the LPD, she can initiate strategic litigation in a case that demonstrates 
frequent and widespread discrimination in respect of which there are good prospects for 
success. It was previously unclear whether the Commissioner needed consent in the case 
of two or more victims of discrimination, as would be 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  in  a  case  that  affected  a  group  of 
people: children of Roma origin.204 Therefore, even if the victims were a group of identified 
people, it would still qualify as actio popularis. 

d) 

Class action 

In  Serbia,  national  law  allows  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, but not in discrimination cases. 

The 2011 Civil Procedure Code introduced so-called organisational claims for the protection 
of  collective  rights  and  interests,205  but  in  2013  the  Constitutional  Court  proclaimed  the 
articles  which  regulate  that  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.206 Therefore, this judgment prevented others 
from using the possibility of bringing a class action in discrimination cases. However, this 
example does not mean that there is no access to class action. 

The  Law  on  Consumer  Protection  regulates  protection  of  the  collective  interests  of 
consumers, but this protection has been moved from civil 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(1)  of  the  LPD  states  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(2)). In other words, the shift of burden of proof from the 
complainant  to  the  respondent  happens  in  the  following  way.  If  the  complainant  proves 
the likelihood of the defendant’s having committed an act of discrimination, the burden of 

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). 

204  See Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2015), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for 

Protection of Equality for 2014, Belgrade, p. 128. 

205  They were introduced for the protection of collective rights and interests and for the protection of 

consumers (Articles 495 to 505). Civil Procedure Code (Zakon o parničnom postupku), Official Gazette of 
the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 72/2011, 49/2013 – CC decision, 74/2013 – CC decision, 55/2014, 28 
September 2011. 

206  See Efektiva, ‘Kolektivna tužba odbačena kao nedozvoljena!?’ (‘Collective claim rejected as inadmissible?’), 

8 July 2014, available at: http://efektiva.rs/aktuelnosti-krediti/kolektivna-tuzba-odbacena-kao-
nedozvoljena. 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 case law still does not provide clear rules on the application of this principle, although 
there are more cases in which judges insist on shifting the burden of proof.207 However, it 
must  be  interpreted  to  mean  that  the  rule  on  the  burden  of  proof  also  applies  to 
harassment.208 Since 2014, the Labour Law has provided, in Article 23(2), for the reversal 
of the burden of proof in discrimination cases, including harassment. 

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 rather substantive. As a consequence, 
the court decides whether particular conduct constitutes discrimination. It is declared only 
in the explanation of the verdict, without mentioning that the reverse burden of proof was 
applied,  and  at  which  moment  the  claimant  proved  the  likelihood  that  the  defendant 
committed an act of discrimination and the burden shifted to the defendant to prove that 
the act was not discriminatory. The Commissioner refers in its regular report for 2018 to 
one study conducted in 2017, which illustrates that only six judgments refer to the evidence 
procedure and explain in detail the reverse burden of proof.209 

This  situation  is  further  exacerbated  by  the  fact  that  the  Civil  Procedure  Code  (which 
applies  as  lex  generalis)  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; and to propose a 
timeframe  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. 

6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) 

In  Serbia,  there  are  measures  for  protection  against  victimisation.  Victimisation  is 
enshrined  in  the  LPD  as  a  special  form  of  discrimination.210  Article  9  states  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’.  This  law  protects  victims  of 
discrimination, as well as people other than the complainant, such as witnesses or 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.  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. 

However,  the  LPD  does  not  impose  a  positive  obligation  on  employers  to  introduce 
protection  measures  against  victimisation,  nor  does  it  provide  express  protection  from 
dismissal in the event of a complaint regarding discrimination.211 

207  See, for example, Appellate Court in Belgrade, Gž. 1 438/2018, judgment of 11 January 2019.  
208  See Petrusić, N., Krstić, I. and Marinković, T. (2014), Commentary on the Law on the Prohibition of 
Discrimination, Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, Judicial Academy, Belgrade, p. 188. 
209  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2019), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for 

Protection of Equality for 2018, Belgrade, p. 52. 

210  Victimisation is known as ‘calling to account’ in Serbian law. 
211  Equal Rights Trust (2019), Equality in Practice – Implementing Serbia’s Equality Laws, London, p. 53.  

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  Commissioner,  in  its  annual  report  for  2019,  underlines  that  in  some  complaints 
procedures it is noticeable that the complainants or witnesses are afraid of losing their jobs 
or  of  further  victimisation,  which  is  the  reason  why  individuals  refuse  to  continue  the 
procedure.212 

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(4) of 
the  LPD  expressly  allows  compensation  for  material  and  non-material  damage  in 
discrimination  cases.213  In  addition,  Article  43(4)  of  the  LPDPD  expressly  provides  for 
compensation  of  damages  which  occur  due  to  a  discriminatory  act.214  The  principles  set 
out in the Law on Contract and Torts apply for determining the type of damage. 

According to Article 43 of the LPD, the complainant may also demand the following: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

the imposition of a ban 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; 
that  steps  be  taken  to  redress  the  consequences  of  the  discriminatory  treatment; 
and; 
that the decision passed be published. 

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.  However,  temporary 
measures are extremely rare in civil proceedings.215 

The LPD (Articles 50 to 60) and the LPDPD (Articles 46 to 52) prescribe the fines that can 
be imposed in misdemeanour proceedings. Monetary fines for misdemeanours range from 
between RSD 10 000 and RSD 50 000 (approximately EUR 80 to EUR 400) for individuals 
(Articles  50  to  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 to 60 of the LPD). The 
same goes for the LPDPD, which in Articles 46 to 52 prescribes the same range of monetary 

212  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 38. 

213  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. 

214  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) 
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. 

215  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2019), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for 

Protection of Equality for 2018, Belgrade, p. 52. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
fines.  In  addition,  other  laws  that  contain  anti-discrimination  clauses  also  cover 
misdemeanours, such as the Labour Law and the Law on the Fundamentals of Education. 

Finally,  some  acts  are  considered  to  be  criminal  acts,  for  which  it  is  possible  to  impose 
monetary fines or imprisonment. 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. 

b) 

Compensation - maximum and avarage amounts 

In  Serbia,  there  is  no  ceiling  on  the  maximum  amount  of  compensation  that  can  be 
awarded, and in civil procedures the amount is subject to the judge’s discretion. However, 
the  average  amount  in  the  current  jurisprudence  cannot  be  deemed  appropriate  in 
comparison with the amount of compensation in some other areas. This applies in particular 
to compensation for non-pecuniary damages. For example, there have been several cases 
involving discrimination against people with disabilities and their 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  should  not  award  the  amount 
requested, or it awarded a token amount in comparison to other cases (e.g. insult).216 

c) 

Assessment of the sanctions 

In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of discrimination cases, but in 
practice there are several problems that 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 who have been exposed to discrimination. Although Article 41(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 
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. 

As has been mentioned, 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  practice,  judges  impose  the  lowest  fines  for 
misdemeanours, even in very serious cases of discrimination. An illustrative example is a 

216  See, for example, Supreme Court of Cassation, Rev. 3602/10, 16 December 2010; Supreme Court of 

Cassation, Rev. 66/12, February 2012.  

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
case of segregation of Roma children in a primary school. In this case, Roma children for 
several years attended  separate  classes in an old building that was located in the  same 
courtyard as the new building where the other pupils learned.217 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 that the offence was of a serious nature, while as a mitigating circumstance 
it found that the principal was a father of three children who earned 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. 

This  shows  that,  despite  the  fact  that  knowledge  among  judges  about  the  need  for 
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. 

217  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. 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7 

a) 

BODIES FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUAL TREATMENT (Article 13 Directive 
2000/43) 

Body  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(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. The first Commissioner was elected in May 2010, аnd the second in May 
2015.  

b) 

Political, economic and social context of the designated body 

The  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  is  working  at  a  very  challenging  time, 
bearing in mind that independent bodies do not have real support from the Government. 
From their establishment, independent bodies in Serbia face difficulties in getting adequate 
premises for their work, adequate financial means and staff as well as technical and other 
support.218 

It is illustrative to mention that the Office of the Commissioner opened in June 2011, in 
premises  that  were  not  adequate  in  terms  of  accessibility  and  technical  and  spatial 
capacity. That situation remained unchanged, although the number and range of activities 
of the Office increased over time. For that reason, the Commissioner repeatedly stated in 
their reports that there was a need to improve the spatial capacity for the Commissioner’s 
work.219 On 30 October 2015, the Commissioner finally received a decision on moving to 
other  premises220  that  would  meet  the  spatial  and  technical  requirements  in  an  area  of 
1 008 m2. Since October 2016, the Commissioner has been using the new premises, which 
has made it possible to employ 60 staff members as stipulated by internal acts.221 In 2017, 
36 staff members were employed, which is 60 % of the estimated total number.222 ECRI 
has  concluded  that  the  Commissioner  has  been  provided  with  additional  staff  and 
appropriate premises, and that she has a ‘high degree of independence’.223 In 2018, the 
number  of  employed  staff  members  increased  to  39,  or  65 %  of  the  estimated  total 
number,224  which  is  still  not  enough,  bearing  in  mind  the  number  of  activities  that  the 
Commissioner performs. In 2019, the situation did not improve – quite the opposite. While 
an  internal  act  stipulated  the  necessity  of  having  60  staff  members  (five  less  than  the 
recommendation in 2018), only 39 were employed.225 

218  Marko Davinic (2018), Independent controlling bodies in the Republic of Serbia (nezavisna kontrolna tela u 
Republici Srbiji), Belgrade, p. 296. See also Civil Right Defenders (2019) Effectiveness of Human Rights 
Institutions in the Western Balkans: Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Comparative Report, What is 
behind and beyond average?  

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

Protection of Equality for 2016, Belgrade, p. 15. 

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

Protection of Equality for 2015, Belgrade, p. 28. 

221  Rulebook on internal arrangement and systematisation of working matches in the expert service of the 

Commissioner (Pravilnik o unutrašnjem uređenju i sitematizaciji radnih mesta u Stručnoj službi Poverenika), 
Personnel Plan for 2018, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 113/2017, 25 December 2017. 
222  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2018), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2017, Belgrade, p. 20. 

223  ECRI, Report on Serbia (fifth monitoring cycle), Council of Europe, adopted on 22 March 2017, pp. 9, 16. 
224  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2019), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2018, Belgrade, p. 24. 

225  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 26. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
c) 

Institutional architecture 

In Serbia, the Commissioner does not form part  of a body with multiple mandates.  The 
Commissioner for the Protection of Equality was established by the LPD as an independent, 
autonomous and specialised state body with a wide mandate in the area of the promotion 
of equality and anti-discrimination in all spheres of society. 

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  that  contain  elements  of  discrimination.  The  Ombudsman  is  an  independent  and 
autonomous  public  body  that  is  responsible  for  the  protection  and  promotion  of  human 
rights  and  freedoms.  The  institution  focuses  in  particular  on  the  protection  of  national 
minorities,  children’s  rights,  the  rights  of  people  with  a  disability,  the  rights  of  persons 
deprived of liberty and gender issues. 

d) 

Status of designated body – general independence 

i) 

Status of the body 

The  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  was  established  by  the  LPD  as  an 
independent, autonomous and specialised state body. The Commissioner is elected by the 
Parliament, acting on a proposal that was submitted by the committee authorised to deal 
with constitutional matters (Article 28(1)). The Commissioner may not perform any other 
public  or  political  function  or  any  political  activity,  in  accordance  with  the  law  (Article 
28(5)).  

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 that they are authorised to do. 
They are also entitled to appoint three assistants. In addition, the 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 that 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, with а regional office in Novi Pazar, which means 
that there is no equal geographic distribution of regional offices.  

ii) 

Independence of the body 

The  immunity  enjoyed  by  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  enables  the 
independence of her work.  

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 the case of their death. 

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; 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 
- 

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 can pass a decision to relieve the Commissioner of their duties by 
a majority vote of the overall number of representatives of the people.  

The Commissioner is accountable to the National Assembly. In accordance with Article 48 
of the LPD, the Commissioner submits to the National Assembly an annual report on the 
situation  in  the  field  of  protection  of  equality.The  Regular  Annual  Report  of  the 
Commissioner for 2017 was presented in detail at the 16th session of the Committee on 
Human and Minority Rights and Gender Equality of the National Assembly of the Republic 
of Serbia, which was held on 22 May 2018, but the report was not considered in the session 
of the National Assembly. The National Assembly considers that the report should serve as 
a  good  basis  for  actions  within  legislative  and  supervisory  powers  of  the  Assembly. 
However, after four years, in 2019, the annual report was discussed in plenary session in 
the National Assembly.  

e)  Grounds covered by the designated body 

According  to  Article  2(1)  of  the  LPD,  grounds  explicitly  covered  by  the  mandate  of  the 
Commissioner 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’. Although 
Article 1(2) contains an open clause provision, it will not be considered to protect same-
sex  family  status  until  the  adoption  of  the  Law  on  Registered  Partnerships.  The 
Commissioner acts upon complaints equally, no matter which ground of discrimination is 
at  stake.  However,  as  the  Commissioner  has  a  wide  range  of  competences,  it  gives 
preference to some grounds of discrimination (Roma, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+) in 
warning  the  public  about  the  most  frequent  and  particularly  prevalent  forms  of 
discrimination and provide training and issuing publications concerning those grounds. 

f) 

Competences of the designated body - and their independent exercise 

i) 

Independent assistance to victims 

The  Commissioner  has  the  competence  to  provide  independent  assistance  to  victims  of 
discrimination.   

From the point of view of victims of discrimination, the Commissioner’s most relevant tasks 
are to receive and consider claims regarding discrimination. The Commissioner can provide 
assistance  in  the  form  of  fulfilling  applications;  by  providing  an  opinion  and 
recommendations in concrete cases; and by providing information to the complainant on 
their rights and the possibility of initiating a lawsuit or other types of protection measures 
(Article  33(2)  of  the  LPD.  The  Commissioner  can  also  file  lawsuits  for  protection  from 
discrimination on behalf of, but with the approval of, the individual who has experienced 
discrimination, and initiate a misdemeanour notice against an act of discrimination. Thus 
far,  it  can  be  concluded  that  this  task  has  been  performed  successfully  and  in  an 
independent manner. 

ii) 

Independent surveys and reports 

According to Article 33(5) of the LPD,  the Commissioner is responsible for preparing and 
submitting  annual  and  special  reports  to  the  Parliament  on  the  situation  in  the  field  of 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
protection of equality. The content of annual reports is prescribed by Article 48 of the LPD, 
which also sets out the reasons for preparing special reports (Article 49 of the LPD). 
The  Commissioner  submits  annual  reports  on  the  work  that  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 
on the request of the National Assembly. These reports contain analyses of the position of 
certain groups that face discrimination and recommendations for the improvement of that 
position by undertaking measures to combat discrimination more effectively. The annual 
report  for  2019  was  submitted  on  time  (on  13  March  2020).226  The  report  is  very 
comprehensive and contains several sections: a normative anti-discrimination framework; 
a description of the current situation in the area of equality and non-discrimination; and 
key problems and challenges in achieving equality and combating discrimination in Serbia. 
The report also contains information on activities perfomed by the Commissioner in 2019 
and their cooperation with other bodies and institutions. The Commissioner underlines that, 
in  order  to  successfully  combat  discrimination  and  achieve  equality,  it  is  necessary  to 
ensure that all mechanisms to protect against discrimination are effective. In addition, it 
is imperative to create a social discourse in which discrimination is condemned and citizens 
are aware of their rights and the mechanisms for their protection. The report also contains 
information on the number of complaints that were submitted in 2019 (the highest number 
concerns  disability  discrimination,  followed  by  discrimination  based  on  sex,  health 
conditions  and  age).  Discrimination  appears  most  frequently  in  the  area  of  labour, 
procedures  before  the  public  authorities,  in  education  and  in  the  provision  of  public 
services.  

Thus far, the Commissioner has prepared special reports concerning the position of persons 
with disabilities, children and women,227 while in 2019 the Commissioner prepared a report 
on discrimination in employment.228 In 2019, the Commissioner also requested a survey 
on  Attitudes  of  Citizens  towards  Discrimination  in  Serbia,229  which  revealed  some 
interesting  results.  Almost  half  of  citizens  (48 %)  believe  that  the  presence  of 
discrimination  is  at  the  same  level  as  it  was  in  2016,  while  69 %  believe  that  it  is  very 
much  present  or  mostly  present  in  Serbian  society.  This  perception  is  least  prevalent 
among those aged 15 to 19 years, and most prevalent among those aged 20 to 29 years. 
The  majority  of  those  with  high-school  education  (74 %)  share  this  opinion.  The  great 
majority  of  citizens  (74 %)  believe  that  discrimination  is  very  much  present  in  the 
workforce, while perceived levels of discrimination are lower in other areas such as social 
protection (30 %), health care (29 %), education (20 %), judiciary (17 %), and the media 
(11 %). Around 69 % of citizens are aware that discrimination is prohibited by law (67 % 
in 2016); this perception is most prevalent among respondents aged 30 to 39, those with 
a  high-school  diploma  and  those  from  western  and  central  Serbia.  Around  41 %  of 
respondents believe that sanctions are effective in cases of discrimination; this opinion is 
mostly  shared  by  those  aged  20  to  29  years  (55 %),  those  with  a  high-school  diploma 
(42 %) and those living in the capital, Belgrade (47 %). Only 7 % of respondents believe 
that sanctions are totally effective. A majority of the respondents believe that the media 
(59 %), political parties (54 %) and citizens (53 %) generate discrimination, while 84 % 
believe that the media is so powerful that it can also influence a reduction of discrimination 

226  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, available at: http://ravnopravnost.gov.rs/izvestaji/. 
227  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2013), Special report on discrimination of people with 

disabilities (Poseban izvestaj o diskriminaciji osoba sa invaliditetom u Srbiji), Belgrade; Commissioner for 
the Protection of Equality (2013), Special report on discrimination of children (Poseban izvestaj o 
diskriminaciji dece), Belgrade; Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2015), Special report on 
discrimination of women (Poseban izvestaj o diskriminaciji osoba zena), Belgrade. 

228  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2019), Special report on discrimination in employment 

(Poseban izveštaj Poverenika za zaštitu ravnopravnosti o diskriminaciji u oblasti rada i zapošljavanja), 
Belgrade, available (in Serbian) at http://ravnopravnost.gov.rs/izvestaji/. 

229  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2019), Attitudes of Citizens towards Discrimination in Serbia 

(Odnos građana i građanki prema diskriminaciji u Srbiji). 

73 

 
 
 
 
in society, together with the family (78 %), school (76 %), and the Commissioner for the 
Protection of Equality (65 %). Citizens are of the opinion that the media in general do not 
pay  enough  attention  to  issues  relating  to  discrimination.  At  the  same  time,  28 %  of 
respondents  believe  that  discrimination  is  an  extremely  significant  problem  in  a  society 
and must be prioritised. However, the number of citizens who are ready to report a case 
of discrimination has significantly decreased, as 41 % of the respondents answered that 
they would not report such a case (59 % said that this was because of a distrust in public 
institutions).  Only  22 %  said  that  they  would  report  a  case  to  the  Commissioner.  The 
greatest distrust  was identified among the elderly, who are defined as those aged 70+. 
Respondents believe that the groups that face the most discrimination in Serbia are: Roma 
(51 %), women (42 %), LGBTIQ+ (33 %), persons with mental disability (33 %) and the 
poor  (31 %).  When  respondents  are  offered  a  list  of  17  groups,  the  order  is  slightly 
different: the poor (27 %), Roma (25 %), persons with mental disability (24 %), elderly 
(21 %), LGBTIQ+(21 %), persons with HIV/AIDS (20 %) and women (16 %). The idea of 
social  distance  towards  the  same  groups  in  society  is  still  very  much  present,  with  an 
increase in social distance towards migrants. The greatest social distance exists towards 
the following groups: migrants, LGBTIQ+ and Albanians, persons with HIV/AIDS, Roma, 
and persons with mental disability.230  

This  competence  of  the  Commissioner  has  been  effectively  exercised  in  an  independent 
manner in practice. 

iii)  Recommendations 

According to Article 33(9) of the LPD, the Commisisoner for the Protection of Equality can 
recommend measures to state bodies and institutions and other persons aimed at ensuring 
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,  and  that  they  undertake  positive  measures  in  order  to  provide  full 
equality and protection for, and ensure the advancement of, people or groups who are in 
an unequal position in comparison with other citizens. In 2019, the Commissioner issued 
686  recommendations  concerning  different  groups  facing  discrimination  and  different 
areas, in comparison with 300 in 2018.231 In a complaint procedure, according to Article 
39,  the  Commissioner  gives  an  opinion  on  whether  there  is  a  violation  of  the  LPD  in  a 
concrete  case.  If  a  violation  is  found,  the  Commissioner  issues  a  recommendation  and 
suggests  a  way  of  redressing  the  matter.  The  person  to  whom  the  recommendation  is 
addressed is obligated to act on it and to redress the violation in question within 30 days 
of the day of receiving it, and to inform the Commissioner. The Commissioner underlined 
in its annual report that all recommendations were fulfilled in 90 % of cases (in comparison 
with 98.3 % in 2018).232 They are all published on its website or presented in the media. 

iv)  Other competences 

According  to  Article  33  of  the  LPD,  the  Commissioner  should  warn  the  public  about  the 
most frequent, typical and severe cases of discrimination; monitor the enforcement of laws 
and  other  regulations;  initiate  the  adoption  of,  or  amendments  to,  such  regulations; 
provide an opinion on the provisions of the law and other regulations for the purpose of 
implementing and developing protection against discrimination; and establish and maintain 
cooperation with bodies in charge of equality and human rights protection on the territories 
of the autonomous provinces and local authorities. The Commissioner is very engaged in 

230  Social distance, in this context, means the measure of nearness and intimacy that a person feels towards a 

member of a certain group.  

231  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 296. 

232  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 5. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
public  awareness  activities  and  prepares  different  publications  and  provides  training  for 
different public officials (judiciary, labour inspectors, police officers, etc.). 

 f)    Legal standing of the designated body 

In Serbia, the Commissioner has a legal standing: 

• 
• 
• 

to bring discrimination complaints (on behalf of identified victims) to court;233  
to bring discrimination complaints (on behalf of non-identified victims) to court;234 
to intervene in legal cases concerning discrimination,235 for example, as an amicus 
curiae. 

However, the Commissioner is not entitled to to bring discrimination complaints ex officio 
to  court,  or  to  initiate  ex  officio  a  complaint  procedure  or  cases  in  which  they  have 
knowledge of discriminatory behaviour, unless the victim submits a claim. 

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 18 times.236 The litigation is initiated and conducted in 
the  general  public  interest  in  order  to  contribute  to  the  consistent  implementation  of 
legislation  and  the  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. 

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, in 
that case children of Roma origin, who are unidentified.237 This decision is very important 
as the court 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. In this situation, the lawsuit would qualify as 
actio  popularis.  However,  in  another  case  from  2015,  the  Appellate  Court  of  Belgrade 
rejected a complaint as the organisation did not have the written consent of three Roma 
children who were allegedly discriminated against.238 The court explained that in this case 
all three children (siblings in one Roma family) were known, and that consent is not needed 
only in a case involving two or more unidentified persons.  

The Commissioner can demand from the court the following: 

a) 

b) 

c) 

the imposition of a ban 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;  
that steps be taken to redress the consequences of the discriminatory treatment; 

233  Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 22/2009, 13/2016, 

26 March 2009, Article 33(3); Articles 46(1) and 46(2).  

234  Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 22/2009, 13/2016, 

26 March 2009, Article 33(3); Article 46(1).  

235  Civil Procedure Code, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 72/2011, 49/2013 – decision CC, 

74/2013 – decision CC and 55/2014, 87/2018, 3 September 2011, Article 215(1).  

236  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 261. 

237  Supreme Court of Cassation, Rev. 853/2014, decision of 3 September 2014.  
238  Appellate Court in Belgrade, No.7 P. 782/15, decision of 29 May 2015. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
d) 

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 they are not entitled to punish a discriminator with a fine 
directly. 

g)  Quasi-judicial competences 

In  Serbia,  the  Commissioner  is  a  quasi-judicial  institution  as  it  receives  complaints  and 
issues decisions on them. 

The  procedure  before  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  is  a  specific 
procedure that has the characteristics of a special administrative procedure. Article 40(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.239 The 
procedure for submitting a complaint is regulated in Articles 35 to 40. A complaint must 
be delivered 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 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 that there has been 
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 binding. Thus, the individual to whom 
the  recommendation  is  addressed  is  obliged  to  act  on  it  and  to  redress  the  violation  in 
question within 30 days of  receiving it. The individual must inform the Commissioner  of 
the measures taken. 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(2) of the 
LPD). This is the only sanction that can be imposed; the Commissioner is not allowed to 
impose other sanctions. The existing sanction has been shown to be effective, especially 
in cases that involve a private individual or entity whose business may be endangered if 
he  or  she  appears  in  newspapers  as  a  discriminator.  In  2019,  the  Commissioner's 
recommendations  were  respected  in  35  cases  (87.5 %)  and  not  respected  in  five  cases 
(12.5 %),  while  in  12  cases  the  deadline  for  acting  on  recommendations  had  not  yet 
expired.240 In order to secure even better implementation of the Commissioner's opinions 
and recommendations, it would be desirable to allow the Commissioner to directly impose 
fines. It is not possible to appeal against the Commissioner’s opinion, but it is possible to 
bring a lawsuit to the court independently. There are no follow-up activities that track and 
secure implementation of the Commissioner’s decisions.  

h) 

Registration by the body 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 
and  in  particular  publications  issued  by  the  Commissioner.  In  2019,  the  Commissioner 
received 711 complaints. In respect of 116 complaints (20.1 %), a personal characteristic 
was not mentioned. In 462 complaints, a personal characteristic was invoked as follows: 
118  complaints  (16.2 %)  –  disability;  96  complaints  (13.2 %)  –  sex;  86  complaints 
(11.8 %)  –  health  status;  72  complaints  (9.9 %)  –  age;  72  complaints  (9.9 %)  – 
membership  of  political  and  trade  unions;  58  complaints  (7.9 %)  –  marital  and  family 
status; 50 complaints (6.8 %) – ethnic origin; 33 complaints (4.5 %) – property status; 

239  Law on General Administrative Procedure, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 18/2016, 9 March 

2016. 

240  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 7. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
18 complaints (2.5 %) – sexual orientation; 14 complaints (1.9 %) – religious or political 
beliefs; 12 complaints (1.6 %) – gender identity; seven complaints (1.0 %) – birth;  six 
complaints  (0.8 %)  –  conviction;  six  complaints  (0.8 %)  –  appearance;  six  complaints 
(0.8 %)  –  language;  four  complaints  (0.5 %)  –  citizenship;  three  complaints  (0.4 %)  – 
genetic features; two complaints (0.3 %) – ancestry; two complaints (0.3 %) – race; and 
65 complaints (8.9 %) on other grounds.241  

With regard to the areas where discrimination occurs, the number of complaints  in 2019 
was  as  follows:  employment  (229  complaints,  or  32.2 %);  public  authorities  (155 
complaints,  or 21.8 %); education and vocation (102 complaints, or 14.3 %); access to 
public services and facilities (53 complaints, or 7.5 %); social protection (41 complaints, 
or 5.8 %); healthcare (27 complaints, or 3.8 %); public sphere (24 complaints or 3.4 %); 
public information and media (18 complaints, or 2.5 %); private relations (17 complaints, 
or 2.4 %); housing (11 complaints, or 1.5 %); culture, art and sport (11 complaints, or 
1.5 %); the operations of trade unions and other organisations (6 complaints, or 0.8 %); 
pensions  (two  complaints,  or  0.3);  and  other  areas  (15  complaints,  or  2.1 %).242  There 
were  no  complaints  claiming  discrimination  in  the  area  of  justice,  property  rights  and 
collective minority  rights,  as in 2018.  The  report contains some other  data, such as the 
numbers  of  male  and  female  applicants  and  details  of  who  submitted  complaints 
(individuals, organisations, legal entities, state institutions, groups or individuals). 

i) 

Stakeholder engagement 

In Serbia, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality engages with stakeholders as 
part of implementing their mandate.  

The Commissioner  cooperates with  the  National Assembly,  the  Government and  various 
ministries, local government units and the judiciary. They also cooperate with CSOs and 
international  partners  in  the  country  and  abroad;  international  governmental  and  non-
governmental organisations; and European and regional equality bodies through bilateral 
meetings and active participation in the work of the European Network of Equality Bodies 
(EQUINET). 

During  2016,  the  Commissioner  initiated  activities  to  establish  an  effective  regional 
cooperation model  for  human rights institutions,  signing the Declaration  on Cooperation 
with  nine  bodies  for  the  protection  of  equality  in  south-east  Europe.  That  initiative 
continued in 2019 in the form of regional conferences and panels.243 

j) 

Roma and Travellers 

The Commissioner  recognises that  the Roma are among the groups that experience the 
most  discrimination  in  Serbia,  which  is  highlighted  in  all  regular  annual  reports.244 
Therefore,  she  deals  with  cases  of  discrimination  against  the  Roma  and  issues  public 
announcements on their situation. In addition, the Ombudsman deals with some cases of 
discrimination against the Roma within its jurisdiction, especially cases of forced eviction.  

Every year on 8 April, which is International Romani Day, the Commissioner issues a press 
release to draw attention to the fact that the situation of the Roma minority is still poor 
and  that  the  Roma  are  the  group  that  faces  the  most  discrimination  in  Serbia.  The 

241  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, pp. 297-298. 

242  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 298. 

243  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 281. 

244  In order to combat discrimination against Roma, the Strategy for Social Inclusion of Roma in the Republic of 

Serbia (for 2016 to 2025) was adopted. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commissioner  noted  in  its  report  for  2019  that  the  Roma  men  and  women  are  still 
frequently  exposed  to  discrimination.245  The  report  contains  relevant  information  on  the 
position of the Roma in Serbia; the Commissioner underlines that they still face widespread 
discrimination  in  education  and  that  they  live  in  inadequate  conditions  in  informal 
settlements.246  In  2019,  the  Commissioner  visited  a  Roma  settlement  in  Makis  after 
receiving information that the Secretariat for Social Welfare intended to expose residents 
to  forced  eviction.  On  that  occasion,  the  Commissioner  emphasised  that  the  process  of 
eviction  must  be  carried  out  in  cooperation  with,  and  with  the  active  participation  of, 
residents, and in accordance with relevant international standards on the displacement of 
citizens from informal settlements.  

For  the  past  seven  years,  a  large  number  of  complaints  have  concerned  alleged 
discrimination against the Roma. In 2019, 50 complaints (6.8 %) were submitted to the 
Commissioner claiming discrimination based on ethnicity. The majority of those cases dealt 
with  unequal  treatment  of  the  Roma  or  other  national  minorities  (Bosniak,  Croatian, 
Albanian  or  Romanian,  etc.).247  In  2019,  32  complaints  were  submitted  claiming 
discrimination  against  the  Roma,  which  made  up  64 %  of  all  complaints  based  on 
ethnicity.248 In one case, during an intervention in one elementary school, a police officer 
slapped  a  minor  and  insulted  him  on  the  basis  of  his  national  origin.249  In  addition,  the 
most  frequent  ground  on  which  the  Commissioner  initiates  strategic  cases  concerns 
discrimination against the Roma. On 30 June 2019, the Commssioner warned the public 
about an attack on a Roma young man, after he posted a picture of himself with a bruise 
on social media. The Commissioner expressed the expectation that the authorities would 
take all measures to identify and adequately punish the perpetrators in order to prevent 
violence, hatred and intolerance towards the Roma, but unfortunately the authorities failed 
to do so.   

Some research studies conducted in 2019 have claimed that the Roma are still one of the 
most vulnerable groups in Serbia.250 The European Commission identified some progress 
in  relation  to  the  position  of  the  Roma,  as  well  as  the  continuation  of  some  negative 
trends.251 Thus, it was found that while most Roma have civil documents, the procedure 
for registering the birth of children whose parents lack documents needs to be monitored. 
There has been an increase in the number of Roma students who benefit from scholarships, 
but still only 9 % of Roma children attend kindergartens, and the drop-out rate remains 
high. Only 67 % of Roma youth complete compulsory education, and only 1 % complete 
higher  education.  Segregation  in  schools  still  exists  and  must  be  addressed.  The 

245  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 38. 

246  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 102. 

247  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2019), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 
Protection of Equality for 2018, Belgrade, p. 246. See also Forum za etničke odnose (2018), Alternative 
report on the protection of rights of national minorities in the Republic of Serbia for 2017 (Alternativni 
izveštaj o zaštiti prava nacionalnih manjina u Republici Srbiji), Belgrade, available at: 
https://www.minoritynews.rs/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Forum-3-2018-SRP-290502018.pdf. 

248  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 219. 

249  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2019), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2018, Belgrade, p. 151. 

250  Demostat, Horizontal Facility for Western Balkans and Turkey Project (2019), Final research report -  

Strenghtening the protection of national minorities, with the focus on the use of minority languages (Finalni 
istraživački izveštaj - Jačanje zaštite nacionalnih manjina sa fokusom na upotrebu manjinskih jezika); Roma 
Education Fund (2019), The right to education and the prohibition of discrimination - Legal and Strategic 
framework and challenges in reintegration procedure of Roma returnees in education system of primary and 
secondary schools (Pravo na obrazovanje i zabrana diskriminacije - Pravni i strateški okvir i izazovi u 
postupku integracije Roma povratnika u obrazovni sistem osnovnih i srednjih škola); Centre for Youth 
Integration (2019), Legal and social status and vulnerability of families and children that live in informal 
settlements in Belgrade (Pravno socijalni položaj i ranjivost porodica i dece koja žive u neformalnim 
naseljima u Beogradu).  

251  European Commission, Serbia 2019 Report, Brussels, 29 May 2019, pp. 29-30.  

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
unemployment rate is 36 % for Roma men and 45 % for Roma women. The Roma are still 
underrepresented in the public administration. Many Roma households have no access to 
electricity  or  drinking  water  and  no  connection  to  the  sewage  system.  Although  child 
marriage  is  not  common  in  the  general  population,  almost  60 %  of  girls  from  Roma 
settlements are married at an early age. Domestic violence is also often unreported. 

In  2019,  the  Commissioner  conducted  four  more  training  sessions  for  police  officers  on 
anti-discrimination law, with a focus on hate crimes and discrimination against the Roma.  

79 

 
 
 
 
 
8 

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES  

8.1  Dissemination  of  information,  dialogue  with  NGOs  and  between  social 

partners 

a)  Dissemination of information about legal protection against discrimination (Article 10 

Directive 2000/43 and Article 12 Directive 2000/78) 

With  regard  to  the  dissemination  of  information  about  legal  protection  against 
discrimination,  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality  publishes  brochures  and 
handbooks for  various  professionals and the wider public in order to inform them  about 
discrimination  and  to  explain  the  available  remedies  if  discrimination  takes  place.  The 
Commissioner  actively  works  to  increase  the  visibility  of  the  institution,  appears  in  the 
media and organises a moot court for law students. In 2019, a seventh law competition 
was initiated in partnership with the Open Society Foundation. The competition was open 
to law students from undergraduate and masters programmes.  

b)  Measures to encourage dialogue with NGOs with a view to promoting the principle of 
equal treatment (Article 12 Directive 2000/43 and Article 14 Directive 2000/78) 

The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality cooperates with international organisations 
and  international  and  national  NGOs.  They  are  very  important  partners  in  advising  on 
complex  discrimination  cases;  being  involved  in  joint  activities;  providing  important 
information about discrimination cases; and engaging in situation testing. In 2019, many 
meetings were organised with different organisations and the Commissioner participated 
in  several  seminars,  round  tables  and  conferences  organised  by  NGOs.  In  2019,  NGOs 
submitted  only  110  complaints  (15 5%)  –  less  than  in  2018  when  they  submitted  293 
complaints  (30.9 %),  and  almost  the  same  as  in  2017,  when  they  submitted  105 
complaints (19.7 %).252 

c)  Measures to promote dialogue between social partners to give effect to the principle 
of  equal  treatment  within  workplace  practice,  codes  of  practice  and  workforce 
monitoring (Article 11, Directive 2000/43 and Article 13, Directive 2000/78) 

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. The Commissioner 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 
there  is  no  discrimination  case.  The  Commissioner  has  prepared  guidelines  and 
methodologies  for  the  adoption  of  the  Equality  Code,  which  contains  anti-discrimination 
policy for employers in Serbia.253 In 2017 and 2018, the Commissioner provided training 
for labour inspectors, and in 2019 it organised training sessions for advisers in the National 
Employment Service.254 

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  implemented in 2015. The  strategy and the action 
plan resulted from consultations with the relevant NGOs and social partners, and continued 

252  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 301. 

253  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, Equality Code: Guidelines for Developing Anti-discrimination 

Policy of Employers in Serbia – Instructions and Methodologies (Kodeks ravnopravnosti - Smernice za izradu 
kodeksa antidiskriminacione politike poslodavaca u Srbiji – uputstvo i metodologije), Belgrade.  

254  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 6. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
through  2017  and  2018.  However,  the  new  strategy  and  the  new  action  plan  were  not 
prepared and adopted until the end of 2019.  

d) 

Addressing the situation of the Roma and Travellers 

The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality deals with cases of discrimination against 
the Roma and issues public announcements on their situation. In addition, the Ombudsman 
deals with some cases of discrimination against the 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,  which  was  established  under  the  Law  on  National  Councils  of  National 
Minorities.255  It  is  an  elected  body  which  has  the  exclusive  right  to  manage  issues  of 
education, the official use of language and public information for the 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  the  Roma.256  Among  other  things,  the 
Council  monitors  the  implementation  of  cooperation  between  national  councils  and  the 
competent authorities of the Republic of Serbia, as well as the 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 for the Inclusion of Roma in the Republic 
of  Serbia  for  the  period  2016-2025  and  the  Action  Plan,  and  to  cooperate  with  local 
government  with  the  aim  of  implementing  local  action  plans.  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 its adoption are 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 and social and health protection. It outlines five main 
areas: education, housing, health, employment and social protection. A working group for 
the preparation of an action plan for the implementation of the strategy for social inclusion 
of the Roma for 2019-2020 was established. The text of the action plan has not yet been 
adopted, but the plan has been prepared and is awaiting the necessary approval from the 
Ministry of Finance.  

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. 257 
The Council receives administrative and technical support from the Office for Human and 
Minority Rights. Its role is to prepare proposals for the development 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 

255  Law on National Councils of National Minorities (Zakon o nacionalnim savetima nacionalnih manjina), Official 
Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 72/2009, 20/2014 – decision CC, 55/2014, 47/2018, 3 September 
2009. 

256  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. 

257  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. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
budgetary resources; and to provide opinions and expert explanations for the realisation 
of important social indicators, etc. 

The  institutional  structure  for  dealing  with  Roma  integration  remains  ineffective  and 
complicated, and there is no clear distribution of tasks. Coordination between the national 
and local authorities and budgeting at local level still need to be reinforced.258 

8.2  Measures to ensure compliance with the principle of equal treatment (Article 

14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Compliance of national legislation (Articles 14(a) and 16(a)) 

In  Serbia,  there  are  mechanisms  to  ensure  that  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions contrary to the principle of equal treatment are abolished. First, working groups 
that are established to prepare the text of a certain law for its adoption should take care 
to ensure that the text does not contravene systemic laws, including the LPD. It may be 
questioned  whether  working  group  members  always  have  enough  expertise  in  anti-
discrimination law.  

Draft laws are open for public debate before they are submitted to the National Assembly. 
In addition, members of Parliament can further ensure, through amendments, that the text 
of  the  law  does  not  contain  any  discriminatory  clauses.  This  process  does  not  apply  to 
regulations and provisions. However, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality has 
a very broad mandate, which includes the initiative to pass or amend laws and regulations 
and to provide opinions on the provisions of draft laws and other regulations pertaining to 
the prohibition of discrimination (Article 33(7) of the LPD). Current practice shows that the 
Commissioner is using this opportunity very frequently, but in some cases, unfortunately, 
its  opinion  has  not  been  taken  into  account.  In  2018,  the  Commissioner  provided  37 
opinions on different laws, submitted four proposals for the assessment of constitutionality 
and initiated nine initiatives for a change to the law.259 In 2019, this trend continued: the 
Commissioner provided 31 opinion on draft laws and other acts, initiated 16 initiatives for 
a change to the law and submitted one proposal for assessment of constitutionality.260 The 
annual report contains information on some of these initiatives and whether or not they 
were accepted. In a majority of cases, proposals were only partially accepted.  

It  is  always  possible  to  challenge  the  constitutionality  of  a  certain  law,  regulation  or 
provision  from  the  perspective  of  the  anti-discrimination  clause  (Article  21  of  the 
Constitution). It is important to underline that in 2019, the Constitutional Court issued a 
decision  stating  that  Article  28a  of  the  Law  on  Pension  and  Disability  Insurance  is 
unconstitutional, prescribing that a  widower  or  widow who is above the age  of 65 when 
their marriage ends cannot claim a family pension if he or she does not have a child with 
the  deceased  or  if  the  marriage  did  not  last  for  at  least  two  years.261  The  proposal  for 
assessment of constitutionality was submitted by the Commissioner in 2017. 

b) 

Compliance of other rules/clauses (Articles 14(b) and 16(b)) 

In  Serbia,  any  other  provisions  contrary  to  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  that  are 
included in individual or collective contracts or agreements, internal rules of undertakings, 
rules  governing  profit-making  or  non-profit-making  associations  or  rules  governing  the 
independent professions and workers’ or employers’ organisations can be declared null and 
void after negotiations with trade unions. However, if there is a claim that a certain rule or 

258  European Commission, Serbia 2019 Report, Brussels, 29 May 2019, p. 29. 
259  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2019), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2018, Belgrade, p. 244. 

260  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 301. 

261  Constitutional Court, Iuz - 130/2017, opinion of 19 June 2019. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
clause  contravenes  the  Constitution  and  the  LPD,  proposals  for  an  assessment  of  its 
constitutionality and legality can be submitted to the Constitutional Court of Serbia.  

83 

 
 
 
9 

COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL 

The Office for Human and Minority Rights, which was established in August 2012, provides 
expert services to the  Government and relevant ministries related to  the protection and 
promotion of human and minority rights;262 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  on 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. 
The Strategy was adopted for the period from  2013 to 2018 with the aim of 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 grounds for discrimination; and members of religious communities) who are most 
often exposed to discrimination.263 

The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, the Office for Human and Minority Rights 
and the Council for National Minorities were involved in the implementation of the Strategy. 
The Action Plan for the implementation of the Strategy was adopted for the period from 
2014 to 2018. The framework for the implementation of strategic objectives was set out 
in the Action Plan, with the aim of enabling the realisation of the objectives and measures 
established by the Strategy and systematic monitoring of their implementation. The Action 
Plan  envisaged  specific  measures  and  actions  necessary  for  the  realisation  of  strategic 
objectives,  deadlines,  responsible  entities  and  resources  for  implementation.  It  also 
defined the indicators of the fulfilment of activities, based on the monitoring of the extent 
of  their  implementation  that  will  be  conducted,  as  well  as  indicators  for  evaluating  the 
objectives and the resources necessary for the achievement of established measures. In 
order  to  assist  the  Sector  for  Anti-Discrimination  Policy  and  Improvement  of  Gender 
Equality  –  which  was  established  in  2017  within  the  Ministry  of  Labour,  Employment, 
Veteran and Social Affairs – to draft the new strategy, the Office of the United Nations High 
Commissioner for Human Rights prepared a baseline study from September to December 
2018. However, the work on a new strategy is still in progress and the new document was 
not  finalised  and  adopted  until  the  end  of  December  2019.264  The  Ministry  of  Labour, 
Employment, Veterans and Social Affairs has so far adopted only a baseline study for the 
new strategy.265 

It is important to underline that the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality cooperates 
closely with the National Assembly, representatives of the judiciary, local self-government 
units, CSOs and international organisations. 

262  The Office for Human and Minority Rights can lend expertise to all ministries dealing with human rights 

issues, but assistance in that regard is given mainly to the Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veteran and 
Social Affairs; the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of the Interior; the Ministry of Health; and the Ministry of 
Education, Science and Technological Development.  

263  A follow-up assessment of the implementation of the strategy was performed between June and October 
2017, and six reports were prepared, the last covering the period from February to September 2018. In 
August 2019, an analysis of the effects of the strategy was adopted by the Ministry of Labour, Employment, 
Veteran and Social Affairs. These reports can be found at: https://ljudskaprava.gov.rs/sh/node/19990. 
264  No new strategy was adopted in 2019; as the previous document has expired, there are no strategic aims 

identified and no action plan activities for their realisation stipulated in order to further improve the position 
of the most vulnerable groups in Serbia. 

265  Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs, Baseline study for the new a for the new 

Strategy on Prevention of and Protection from Discrimination 2020-2025 (Analiza efekata, odnosno polazne 
osnove za izradu nove Strategije prevencije i zaštite od diskriminacije 2020-2025), 20 August 2019. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICE 

The work of the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality since its creation 10 years ago 
must be evaluated as successful, despite the technical and spatial constraints, which were 
finally  resolved  in  2017.  In  May  2015,  Brankica  Jankovic  was  elected  as  the  second 
Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, and she continued to perform all the duties of 
her predecessor. In 2019, the Commissioner received fewer complaints than in 2018 (711) 
and  issued  fewer  opinions  (in  70  cases),  but  it  issued  686  general  recommendations, 
provided 31 opinion on draft laws and general acts, initiated six criminal charges in addition 
to three misdemeanour charges, and issued 23 warnings and 34 announcements.266 The 
Commissioner  continued  to  support  regional  cooperation  and  actively  participate  in 
EQUINET. The body also organised and participated in 670 training sessions, conferences, 
lectures  and  round  tables;  issued  numerous  handbooks  and  guides;  and  contributed  to 
awareness-raising  on  discrimination  and  the  legal  framework  for  protection  against 
discrimination.  The  institution  also  become  more  visible  in  2019,  which  means  that  the 
public is now more aware of the existence and activities of the Commissioner. 

Given the need for judges to have more specialist knowledge and enhanced capacity and 
sensitivity  in  dealing  with  complex  issues,  training  for  anti-discrimination  trainers  was 
continued at the Judicial Academy in 2019 for eight judges from the higher courts and from 
the jurisdiction of four appellate courts, with the support of the  OSCE mission in Serbia. 
The  training  programme  consisted  of  two  seminars  on  different  issues  relating  to 
discrimination, including the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the 
CJEU. The main aim of this study group was to give Serbian judges a greater insight into 
the CJEU’S work in the area of non-discrimination, as they currently have a very modest 
level  of  knowledge  of  its  functioning  and  jurisprudence.  In  October  2019,  a  two-day 
refresher  course  was  organised,  in  which  judges  were  informed  about  the  latest 
jurisprudence of international courts and had a chance to discuss the current practice of 
Serbian courts. In addition, the Judicial Academy organised a five-day course of intensive 
initial training on non-discrimination for future judges and prosecutors, which was held in 
June  in  Zlatibor.  The  HELP  anti-discrimination  course  was  also  available  to  them.  In 
cooperation  with  the  OSCE  mission  to  Serbia,  the  Judicial  Academy  also  organised  two 
sessions  with  two  days  of  intensive  training  for  judges  and  prosecutors  on  non-
discrimination in the area of asylum and migration.   

The situation of LGBTI rights in Serbia has improved since 2017. The 2018 Gay Pride march 
was  organised without  any problems; hundreds of participants were joined by the  city’s 
mayor, the Serbian Prime Minister and a number of ambassadors and other state officials. 
On 15 September 2019, Gay Pride in Belgrade gathered over a hundred LGBTIQ+ activists 
and  civil  society  organisations  from  across  the  Western  Balkans  (Montenegro,  Albania, 
North  Macedonia,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina),  accompanied  by  activists  from  Greece, 
Norway, Belarus and the United States, who shared their experience of the struggle in their 
communities. A considerable number of police and social welfare staff have been trained 
in LGBTIQ+ issues. In addition, public prosecutors have received training on hate crimes. 

A  positive  trend  is  that  in  2018  there  were  175  pedagogical  assistants  in  local  self-
government units contributing to the inclusion of Roma students in education and support 
them to achieve better results, whereas by 2019 the number had increased to 250.267 

In  2019,  two  important  strategies  were  adopted.  The  Strategy  for  the  Development  of 
Artificial Intelligence was adopted for the period 2020 to 2025 with the goal of developing 

266  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 7. 

267  Atanackovic, I., Education of Roma in Serbia: The Hard Way from Discrimination to Integration 

(Obrazovanje Roma u Srbiji: Težak put od diskriminacije do integracije), Danas, 8 December 2019, 
available at: https://www.danas.rs/drustvo/obrazovanje-roma-u-srbiji-tezak-put-od-diskriminacije-do-
integracije/. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
artificial  intelligence  in  Serbia  while  respecting  human  rights.  One  of  the  stipulated 
measures  seeks  to  provide  protection  from  discrimination  in  the  application  of  artificial 
intelligence,  as  a  risk  was  identified  that  the  automation  of  decision-making  may  mean 
that  decisions  are  made  on  the  basis  of  discriminatory  criteria.268  The  Strategy  for 
Consumer  Protection  for  2019-2024  underlines  that  artificial  intelligence  and  decision-
making  based  on  algorithms  can  have  serious  implications  for  consumers,  who  may 
experience  discrimination  based  on  their  financial  status  and  may  be  prevented  from 
accessing more favourable offers.269  

The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality continued its successful cooperation with 
the  Office  of  the  Council  of  Europe  in  Belgrade  in  coordinating  the  joint  project  ‘Living 
Library in Serbia – Don’t Judge a Book by its Cover’. Тhe aim of this project is to reduce 
the effect of negative stereotypes and prejudice as key causes of discrimination. In 2018, 
five new partners, including two primary schools, joined the project,270  while in 2019 four 
elementary schools, five high schools and one faculty became new partners. In December 
2019, a panel event entitled ‘Equality among Young People’ was held; it was dedicated to 
the exchange of experiences of discrimination among the young in Serbia.271 

268  Strategy for the Development of Artificial Intelligence in Serbia for 2020 to 2025 (Strategija za razvoj 

veštačke inteligencije u Republici Srbiji za period 2020-2025), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, 
No. 73/2019, 15 October 2019.  

269  Strategy for Consumer Protection for 2019 to 2024 (Strategija zaštite potrošača za period 2019 - 2024), 

Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 93/2019, 3 January 2020. 

270  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2019), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2018, Belgrade, p. 217. 

271  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 279. 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES 

11.1 Potential breaches of the directives at the national level 

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 

The  definition  of  indirect  discrimination  does  not  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  (contrary  to  Article  2(2)(b)  of  Directive  2000/43  and 
Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78). 

Furthermore,  ‘instruction  to  discriminate’  is  not  recognised  as  discrimination  in  the  LPD 
and the liability for instruction is not clearly regulated (contrary to Article 2(4) of Directive 
2000/43 and Article 2(4) of Directive 2000/78). 

b) 

Proving discrimination 

The LPDPD does not contain a provision for reversal of the burden of proof, although the 
LPD, as a systemic law, does include this concept in Article 45(2) (contrary to Article 10(1) 
of Directive 2000/78). 

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 (contrary to Article 3 of 
Directive 2000/43 and Article 3 of Directive 2000/78). Although certain other laws regulate 
some issues such as self-employment, social protection and housing, these areas should 
be expressly included in the LPD, as in practice it can be interpreted that anti-discrimination 
legislation does not apply in such cases. 

The LPD mentions only access to services and does not expressly mention access to goods 
(contrary to Article 3(1)(h) of Directive 2000/43). 

The duty of reasonable accommodation exists in relation to the provision of services and 
the  use  of  facilities,  as  well  as  employment.  However,  according  to  Article  22(4)  of  the 
LPDPD, which prescribes a duty of reasonable accommodation in the workforce, it can be 
invoked only in the case of a refusal to carry out a technical adaptation of the workplace 
that enables efficient work by people with disabilities, and it cannot take other forms, such 
as reassigning tasks, moving people to another function, etc., which contradicts Article 5 
of Directive 2000/78/EC. In addition, the employer can be exempted from this obligation 
if  the  costs  of  the  adaptation  are  disproportionate  to  the  profit  of  the  employer  who  is 
employing a person with a disability. In other words, the disproportionality of the burden 
is assessed only in financial terms. Furthermore, there is an individual relationship between 
the  profit  gained  from  employing  the  person  with  a  disability  and  the  cost  of  the 
accommodation for that person. This provision  is not  clear, and it can  be argued that it 
seems to imply that the employer still has to gain some profit from employing the person 
with  a  disability.  The  same  applies  to  Article  13(5)(3)  of  the  LPDPD,  which  prescribes  a 
duty of reasonable accommodation in the provision of services. Therefore, further judicial 
interpretation is required in order to clarify this matter.  

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
d) 

Exceptions from discrimination 

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  (contrary  to  Article 
4(2) of Directive 2000/78 

e) 

Remedies, enforcement and 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. In addition, the LPDPD does not provide 
protection from victimisation (contrary to Article 9 of Directive 2000/43 and Article 11 of 
Directive 2000/78). 

11.2 Other issues of concern  

Although the previous strategy document expired in December 2018, the new Strategy on 
the Prevention of and Protection from Discrimination has not yet been adopted, and nor 
has the Action Plan accompanying the Strategy for Social Inclusion of Roma for 2019 to 
2020. In addition, the amendments to the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination have 
not been yet adopted, despite many efforts to finalise amendments and to fully align the 
text  with  the  EU  acquis.  Among  other  issues  mentioned  in  the  previous  section,  it  is 
important to underline that the definition of ‘direct discrimination’ seems to be limited to 
less favourable treatment and does not cover detriment. Discrimination by association is 
recognised  in  the  LPD,  but  its  application  is  limited  to  ‘members  of  families’  and  people 
who are close to those who are discriminated against.  

Furthermore,  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 that regard. 

Serbia was the last country in the region to adopt a Law on Free Legal Aid. The Law limits 
the role of NGOs in providing free legal aid, although it accepts their legal standing in anti-
discrimination lawsuits. It is hard to assess the effectiveness of legal solutions stipulated 
in the Law as it entered into force only in October 2019, but there is some doubt that the 
Law will limit the provision of different forms of legal aid by NGOs in discrimination cases.  

Despite  some  positive  trends  (the  organisation  of  Gay  Pride;  the  delivery  of  training  on 
LGBTIQ+  issues  and  hate  crimes  for  the  police  and  social  welfare  staff),  the  position  of 
LGBTIQ+ people still remains a controversial issue in Serbia, and the Law on Registered 
Partnerships has not yet been adopted. Furthermore, LGBTIQ+ people still face prejudice, 
and a considerable proportion of discrimination is committed by civil servants and public 
officials who do not always promote understanding and tolerance towards LGBTIQ+ people. 
Furthermore,  intersex  persons  are  legally  invisible  in  Serbia,  and  they  are  exposed  to 
stigmatisation and self-stigmatisation.272  

The  Roma  are  still  the  most  vulnerable  group.  As  ECRI  has  noted,  only  6 %  of  Roma 
children  are  enrolled  in  pre-school,  only  46 %  complete  the  compulsory  eight  years  of 
primary education and just 13 % complete secondary education. Only half as many Roma 

272  Gayten – LGBT (2019) Intersex - Towards establishing an intersectional platform (Interseks - ka stvaranju 

intersekcionalne platforme), Belgrade. 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
girls as Roma boys attend and complete secondary school. The figures for Roma living in 
settlements – in particular, for displaced Roma from Kosovo – are even worse. In addition, 
72 % of all Roma settlements are still informal, while not a single Roma person is employed 
in  public  services.273  Statistical  data  on  vulnerable  groups  is  still  not  disaggregated,  in 
particular for Roma children and children with disabilities.274 However, in 2019, it was noted 
that  there  had  been  an  increase  in  the  number  of  Roma  students  benefiting  from 
scholarships. 

Although the LPD prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation (Article 2(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. However, Article 2(1) prohibits any unlawful discrimination that is based on 
sexual  orientation,  among  other  things,  and  one  could  argue  that  this  prohibits  the 
provision  of benefits  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 would interpret the scope of Article 21 and Article 2(1) in different ways in relation 
to  sexual  orientation.  While  the  Commissioner  would  claim  that  such  treatment  is 
discriminatory, judges would say that the application of Article 21 is limited, and would not 
find that discrimination had occurred. 

In general, it appears that judges, despite the provision of many training sessions, still do 
not  correctly  apply  non-discrimination  provisions  such  as  the  use  of  a  comparator, 
justification test, reverse burden of proof, 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.  

Another main issue of concern is the inadequate conduct of judges in misdemeanour cases, 
whose inactivity in a procedure leads to the application of the statute of limitations, as well 
as the conduct of public prosecutors who, in a majority of cases, do  not act on criminal 
charges.  Moreover,  despite  the  availability  of  a  range  of  applicable  sanctions  in 
discrimination  cases,  the  practice  demonstrates  that  they  are  mild  and  there  are  often 
delays  in  the  proceedings,  which  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  sanctions  cannot  be 
considered to be effective, proprotionate and dissuasive. It is also important to note that 
the  level  of  compliance  with  the  Commissioner’s  recommendations  as  a  percentage 
dropped in 2019 in comparison with previous years.  

In addition, Serbia does not provide compensatory collective redress as stipulated in the 
injunctive  and 
Commission’s  2013  recommendation  on  common  principles 
compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations 
of rights granted under union law.  

for 

The  case  analysis  shows  that  the  majority  of  criminal  charges  apply  to  members  of  the 
Roma and LGBTQ+ populations. A great amount of suspicion about the existence of such 
crime  is  expressed  in  statements  given  in  the  media  and  in  comments  on  news  stories 
posted  on internet  sites. It is particularly worrying that the Prosecutor’s Office informed 
the  Commissioner  about  the  actions  that  were  undertaken  in  only  in  a  small  number  of 
cases  of discrimination. In a greater number  of cases, criminal charges were dismissed, 
despite  serious  doubts  and  concerns  that  an  offence  had  actually  been  committed. 
Therefore,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  prosecuting  authorities  are  not  yet  sufficiently 
sensitised to issues of discrimination, and that they still do not recognise the social danger 
in making statements that can provoke hatred and intolerance. In addition, it is concerning 
that there is a lack of understanding of judges in misdemeanour cases with regard to the 
specific  nature  of  cases  in  which  discrimination  appears.  In  the  majority  of  cases, 
suspension  of  the  procedure  occurred  due  to  its  obsolescence.  That  practice  must  be 

273  ECRI, Report on Serbia (fifth monitoring cycle), Council of Europe, adopted on 22 March 2017, p. 10. 
274  European Commission, Serbia 2019 Report, Brussels, 29 May 2019, p. 29. 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
urgently  changed  so  that  the  misdemeanour  procedure  can  be  considered  an  effective 
mechanism for protection against discrimination. There is also a policy of applying lesser 
sanctions  for  discriminatory  acts  in  very  serious  cases  of  discrimination,  such  as  the 
segregation of Roma children in schools. This practice illustrates that judges  are still not 
aware  of  the  very  detrimental  effects  of  discrimination.  It  is  also  important  to  provide 
training on the shifting 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. 

Although several major training sessions were organised in 2019, this is still not enough. 
The current situation requires the implementation of different measures: the introduction 
of  an  obligatory  anti-discrimination  course  at  university  level;  workshops  on  breaking 
stereotypes during initial training at the Judicial Academy; and regular mandatory seminars 
as part of 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  prejudice  and  stereotypes. 
Furthermore, in the majority of cases, anti-discrimination proceedings are initiated for any 
wrongdoing that citizens have experienced, which also reflects the lack of understanding 
of the concept of discrimination.  

Finally,  it  is  necessary  to  enhance  the  statistical  parameters  and  the  database  for 
monitoring court proceedings concerning discrimination cases.  

90 

 
 
 
 
12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2019 

12.1 Legislative amendments 

The adoption in 2018 of the Law on Free Legal Aid,275 which was initiated by the Action 
Plan for Chapter 23 for the third quarter of 2015, was of utmost importance. The Law was 
implemented in October 2019, and its purpose is to ensure and provide access to justice 
for everyone. The Law recognises as direct beneficiaries – among others – persons with 
disabilities, persons exposed to forced eviction and persons who are subject to a procedure 
for the deprivation of legal capacity. Article 10(1) prescribes that free legal aid is based on 
the equal availability of this right without discrimination among providers and beneficiaries, 
as  well  as  respecting  the  principle  of  accessibility  of  facilities  where  free  legal  aid  is 
provided.  

The  Law  on  Tourism,  which  was  adopted  in  2019,  enshrines  in  law  principles  of  human 
rights,  respect  and  dignity  for  persons  with  disabilities,  equality  and  the  prohibition  of 
discrimination in tourism.276 

The new Law on Health Protection enshrines in law principles of health protection, including 
the protection of human rights, the principle of comprehensiveness and the accessibility 
principle, as well as the principle of fairness, which includes the principle of equality and 
the prohibition of discrimination.277 

12.2 Case law 

Ground: Disability 
Name of the court: Appellate Court in Kragujevac 
Date of decision: 12 July 2019 
Name of the parties: A. M. v. Banca Intesa a. d. Beograd 
Reference number: Gž - 4172/19 
Link: N/A 
Brief  summary:  The  higher  court  in  Krusevac,  in  its  judgment  No. 1080/18  of  15  May 
2019,  found  that  there  was  discrimination  on  the  basis  on  disability  in  respect  of  the 
inaccessibility of a bank office to persons with disabilities using wheelchairs. The claimant 
had been a longstanding client of the bank, but the bank decided to change its location, 
and the new office was not accessible as there was one step at the entrance to the facility. 
Due  to  this  obstacle,  the  client  was  forced  to  call  the  bank  beforehand  to  announce  his 
arrival.  On  each  occasion,  he  would  be  helped  by  bank  officials  to  enter  the  premises. 
However,  the  Appellate  Court  overruled  the  lower  court’s  decision  on  the  basis  of 
incomplete fact-finding. The Appellate Court erroneously concluded that it was not a case 
of  discrimination  as  the  lower  court  had  not  assessed  whether  there  were  technical 
conditions to enable the installation of a ramp. In addition, the Appellate Court was of the 
opinion that, if there were technical conditions to enable the installation of a ramp, it would 
then be necessary to discuss in whose jurisdiction – that of the bank or the city government 
– the duty of installation would fall. 

Ground: Not specified 
Name of the court: Court of Cassation 
Date of decision: 23 January 2019 
Name of the parties: AA (not available) v. BB (not available) 
Reference number: Rev 37/2019 
Link: https://vk.sud.rs/sr-lat/rev-372019-11436-diskriminacija-1642-imunitet-319113-
tu%C5%BEba 

275  Law on Free Legal Aid, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 87/2018, 21 November 2018. 
276  Law on Tourism (Zakon o turizmu), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 17/2019, 22 March 2019. 
277  Law on Health Protection (Zakon o zdravstvenoj zaštiti), Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, 

No. 17/2019, 22 March 2019. 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Brief  summary:  This  case  concerns  an  adjudication  by  a  court,  and  a  claim  that  an 
individual  was  exposed  to  discrimination  due  to  the  court’s  misapplication  of  law.  The 
claimant  alleged  that  he  was  discriminated  against  as  the  judge  acted  unlawfully  in  his 
case. He claimed that the judge should withdraw from the case, but his claim was rejected.  

The Court of Cassation found that this specific case did not involve discrimination, as there 
was no different treatment based on any personal characteristic. The Court of Cassation 
underlined the position of the courts and the independence of judges in their application 
of  the  law.  The  Court  explained  that  the  possible  misapplication  of  substantive  and 
procedural law is corrected in a legally prescribed procedure, by  submitting regular and 
extraordinary legal remedies in the course of which monitoring of the regularity of court 
decisions is prescribed.  The Court underlined in particular that a judge enjoys immunity 
guaranteed by the Constitution and that the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, as 
lex specialis, cannot exclude the application of the highest act in Serbia. 

Ground: Residence 
Name of the court: Appellate Court in Nis 
Date of decision: 6 February 2019 
Name of the parties: AA (not available) v. Ministry of Defence 
Reference number: R 5/2019 
Link: N/A  
Brief summary: On 25 March 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human 
Rights delivered its judgment in Vuckovic and others v. Serbia.278 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.  Since  they  were 
subsequently demobilised, the Government had refused to pay the per diems to which they 
were entitled. After public protests, the Government reached an agreement in 2008 with 
some  of  the  reservists  residing  in  seven  underdeveloped  municipalities.  Only  those 
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  discrimination  resulting  from  the  2008 
agreement. However, the applicants did not rely on any anti-discrimination provisions and 
the  court  of  first  instance  dismissed  their  claim,  based  on  the  fact  that  the  three-year 
prescription  period  since  their  demobilisation  had  expired.  They  therefore  filed  a  new 
lawsuit after the Grand Chamber delivered its decision. In this case, the Appellate Court 
reasoned that, the higher court found in a civil procedure that there was a concrete case 
of discrimination, the higher court is also competent to determine the amount of pecuniary 
and  non-pecuniary  compensation  for  discrimination.  This  decision  is  very  important,  as 
otherwise victims of discrimination would be in a situation to initiate a new compensation 
procedure. 

Grounds: Age and education qualifications 
Name of the court: Court of Cassation 
Date of decision: 31 October 2019 
Name of the parties: AA (not available) v. BB (not available) 
Reference number: Rev 67/2018 
Link: https://www.vk.sud.rs/sr-lat/rev2-672018-361 
Brief summary: In this case, a graduate engineer had passed the certification exam and 
had  three  licences  issued  by  the  Serbian  Chamber  of  Engineers  that  confirmed  his 
competences  for  the  job  of  an  independent  engineer.  He  claimed  that  he  had  been 
discriminated  against  based  on  age  and  education  qualifications  (‘other  personal 
characteristics’)  since  4  April  2011,  when  he  was  transferred  to  lower-paid  jobs  that 
objectively  required  a  lower  degree.  He  was  subsequently  declared  redundant  due  to 
organisational changes, and his  contract  was terminated on 24 May 2013. He  had been 
employed  by  the  same  employer  since  1987.  The  higher  court  in  Novi  Sad  rejected  his 

278  ECtHR, Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia, app. No. 17153/11 et al., judgment of 25 March 2014. 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
claim, and the appellate court in Novi Sad upheld the findings of the lower court, as did 
the Court of Cassation. In finding that there was no discrimination in this case, the Court 
relied on the fact that the claimant’s organisational unit employed employees with all levels 
of qualification (from primary to higher  education), not only highly qualified  employees. 
The Court also relied on the fact that workers of different ages were transferred to different 
jobs within the firm all the time. In addition, the Court found that the claimant lost his job 
because the employer decided to terminate the unit in which he was engaged, and not as 
a  result  of  his  personal  characteristics.  However,  the  Serbian  courts  did  not  assess  the 
employer’s treatment of older workers and did not rely on statistics to prove that  it was 
not a case of discrimination. The Court relied primarily on the fact that employees with a 
lower level education were engaged in the same organisational unit, and it did not discuss 
how  many  workers  in  total  and  how  many  older  workers  in  the  firm  had  been  declared 
redundant and lost their jobs. 

Ground: Age 
Name of the court: Court of Cassation 
Date of decision: 26 September 2019 
Name of the parties: AA (not available) v. BB (not available) 
Reference number: Rev 2. 2089/2019 
Address of the webpage: https://www.vk.sud.rs/sr-lat/rev2-20892019-diskriminacija 
Brief summary: A lawsuit was filed against an employer who organised a meeting with 
seven  female  workers  who  fulfilled  the  conditions  for  retirement  at  the  age  of  63.  He 
explained  that  if  they  refused  to  retire,  they  would  be  exposed  to  some  unpopular 
measures in the form of pay cuts or relocation to a lower-paid job. They refused to file a 
retirement  claim,  and  they  were  subsequently  assigned  to  lower-paid  jobs.  The  same 
happened  to  co-workers  who  also  fulfilled  the  conditions  for  retirement.  The  Court  of 
Cassation  found  that  there  was  age  discrimination  in  this  case,  as  all  workers  in  fact 
continued  to  perform  the  same  job,  but  with  reduced  earnings.  However,  the  Court  of 
Cassation,  including  the  lower  courts,  did  not  find  that  this  was  a  case  of  multiple 
discrimination (on the basis of age and gender). 

Ground: N/A 
Name of the court: Court of Cassation 
Date of decision: 19 July 2019 
Name of the parties: AA (not available) v. BB (not available) 
Reference number: Rev 2. 1283/2019 
Address of the webpage: https://www.vk.sud.rs/sr-lat/rev2-12832019-362  
Brief summary: In this case, a director of a bank was dismissed. He claimed that he was 
discriminated against from October 2008 until August 2009, when he was fired. In October 
2008, the Governor of the National Bank of Serbia issued a decision to establish a forced 
administration and appointed the compulsory trustees. They fired the claimant, as he was 
obstructing their work. The Court of Cassation underlined the importance of the shift in the 
burden of proof in a case in which the claimant must prove the likelihood that he or she 
was  discriminated  against.  However,  in  this  case,  there  were  no  indications  that  the 
claimant  was  discriminated  against  on  the  basis  of  his  personal  characteristics,  and  the 
Court found that there was no discrimination.  

12.3 Cases brought by Roma and Travellers 

There are no available data on the number of cases brought by Roma and Travellers.  In 
December 2017, the European Roma Rights Centre (EERC) initiated a lawsuit against the 
cutting off of the electricity supply to a Romani neighbourhood in the southern Serbian city 
of Niš, where several hundred people live. The supply was cut off in the middle of a lawsuit 
that  accused  Elektroprivreda  Srbije  (the  electricity  public  power  authority)  of  race 
discrimination.  The  electricity  supply  was  restored  after  the  court  issued  an  emergency 
order  to  turn  it  back  on.  The  electricity  had  been  cut  off  as  there  were  two  collective 
electricity meters located off-site and bills were estimated collectively. The bills were huge, 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
as a result of which the lawsuit was initiated, especially as in all other cases each household 
had its own meter.279  

The  following  year,  another  interesting  case  was  brought  by  the  ERRC.280  Based  on  the 
statistics  available,  Romani  children  are  separated  from  their  families  much  more  often 
than  children  of  other  ethnicities,  and  placed  in  foster  care  (family  and  residential 
accommodation). The numbers range from 17.3 % to 65 %, depending on the institution. 
Due  to  this  fact,  a  lawsuit  was  initiated  against  the  discriminatory  treatment  of  Romani 
children, bearing in mind that they amount to 2.05 % of the total population in Serbia.281 
The  lawsuit  underlined  in  particular  that  the  state  acknowledged  that  there  is  a 
disproportionate number of Romani children among those children who are accommodated 
in residential care facilities and foster families.282 

In  2019,  the  number  of  complaints  before  the  Commissioner  claiming  discrimination  on 
the basis of  ethnicity decreased, with 50 complaints (6.8 %) being  made.  However,  the 
majority of complaints on that ground (32 complaints, or 64 %) were submitted in respect 
of  discrimination  against  Roma.  Of  those  32  complaints,  12  were  submitted  by  CSOs, 
mostly in respect of discrimination in the area of employment, access to public authorities 
and delivery of services.283 Other complaints were brought by individuals. 

In 2019, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality initiated one criminal charge for 
incitement of racial hatred towards Roma.284 

CSOs  also  advocate  for  Roma  rights.  For  example,  a  coalition  of  NGOs  made  a  joint 
submission to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights regarding some 
current problems experienced by the Roma in Serbia.285 Among other issues, they claim 
that the Law on Financial Support for Families with Children discriminates against the most 
marginalised  Roma  children.  The  Law  introduces  additional  conditions  for  parental 
allowance – i.e. that all children in a family must be vaccinated fully and on time, and that 
they  must  regularly  attend  elementary  school  and  obligatory  preschool  education. 
Although,  on  the  face  of  it,  those  conditions  are  neutral,  their  effects  disproportionately 
affect vulnerable Roma children. 286 

In 2019, situational testing of discrimination against the Roma was conducted. First, it was 
proved that one taxi association does not carry Roma passemgers. However, another test 
involving discrimination against Roma in the area of employment did not prove that such 
discrimination existed.287 

279  European Roma Rights Centre, ’Serbian Court Issues Emergency Order to Turn the Lights Back on in Roma 
Neighborhood’, 7 January 2019, available at: http://www.errc.org/press-releases/serbian-court-issues-
emergency-order-to-turn-the-lights-back-on-in-roma-neighbourhood  

280  Higher Court in Belgrade, ERRC v. the Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Policy, City of 

Belgrade and City of Nis, lawsuit No. 8386/18. 

281  European Roma Rights Centre, Family Life Denied: Overrepresentation of Romani children in State Care in 
Serbia, December 2017, available at: http://www.errc.org/uploads/upload_en/file/overrepresentation-of-
romani-children-in-state-care-in-serbia.pdf  

282  UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 
44 of the Convention, Second and third periodic reports of States parties due in 2013 : Serbia, 21 June 
2016, para. 82. 

283  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 222. 

284  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 223. 

285  Coalition of NGOs, Joint Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Committee on Economic, Social 

and Cultural Rights on List of Issues for the Third Periodic Report of the Republic of Serbia, 26 August 2019. 

286  Law on Financial Support to the Family with Children (Zakon o finansijskoj podr]ci  porodici sa decom), 

Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 113/2017, 50/2018, 25 December 2017, Article 25(1)(6). 

287  Commissioner for the Protection of Equality (2020), Regular annual report of the Commissioner for the 

Protection of Equality for 2019, Belgrade, p. 223. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: MAIN TRANSPOSITION AND ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION 

Country:  
Date:   

Serbia 
31 December 2019 

Title of the law: The Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination 
Abbreviation: LPD 
Date of adoption: 26 March 2009 
Latest relevant amendments: N/A 
Entry into force: 7 April 2009 
Web link: http://ravnopravnost.gov.rs/propisi/propisi-republike-srbije/ 
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 account288 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 relevant amendments: N/A 
Entry into force: 25 December 2009 
Web link: http://ravnopravnost.gov.rs/propisi/propisi-republike-srbije/ 
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 relevant amendments: 19 February 2016 
Entry into force: 1 January 2007 
Web link: http://ravnopravnost.gov.rs/propisi/propisi-republike-srbije/ 
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 

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

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title of the law: Law on the Professional Rehabilitation and Employment of Persons 
with Disabilities 
Abbreviation: LPREPD 
Date of adoption: 13 May 2009 
Latest relevant amendments: 16 April 2013 
Entry into force: 15 May 2009 (Article 24 and 29 on 24 May 2010) 
Web link: http://ravnopravnost.gov.rs/propisi/propisi-republike-srbije/ 
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 relevant amendments: 28 June 2018 
Entry into force: 7 March 2002 
Web link: http://ravnopravnost.gov.rs/propisi/propisi-republike-srbije/ 
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 relevant amendments: 16 December 2018 
Entry into force: 23 March 2005 
Web link: https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_radu.html 
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 and Upbringing  
Abbreviation: LFE 
Date of adoption: 27 September 2017 
Latest relevant amendments: 15 February 2019 
Entry into force: 7 October 2017 
Web link: 
https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_osnovama_sistema_obrazovanja_i_vaspitanja.html 
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 
Date of adoption: 6 October 2005 
Latest relevant amendments: 21 May 2019 
Entry into force: 14 November 2005 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
Web link: https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/krivicni-zakonik-2019.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 

97 

 
 
 
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 

ANNEX 2: INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS 

Country: 
Date:   

Serbia 
31 December 2019 

Instrument  Date of 

signature  

Date of 
ratification  

3.4.2003 

3.3.2004 

3.4.2003 

22.3.2005 

3./3.2004 
entered into 
force 
1.4.2005 
14.9.2009 
entered into 
force 
1.11.2009 

N/A 

N/A 

12.3.2001 
(succession) 

11.5.2001 
(accession) 
entered into 
force 
1.9.2001 

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 

N/A 

12.3.2001 
(succession) 

No 

No 

Yes 

N/A 

12.3.2001 
(succession) 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Instrument  Date of 

signature  

Date of 
ratification  

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? 

N/A 

Yes 

N/A 

24.11.2000 

ILO 
Convention 
No. 111 on 
Discriminatio
n 
Convention 
on the 
Rights of the 
Child 
Convention 
on the 
Rights of 
Persons with 
Disabilities  

N/A 

12.3.2001 
(succession) 

No 

N/A 

Yes 

17.12.2007 

31.7.2009 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. 
You can find the address of the centre nearest you at:  
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en.  

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union.  
You can contact this service: – by freephone: 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), –  
at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or – by email via: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en. 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available 
on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european- union/index_en.  

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications . Multiple copies of free publications may 
be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre  
(see https://europa. eu/european-union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the 
official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur- lex.europa.eu. 

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets 
from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

PDF  

ISBN:  doi: 

PDF 

ISBN: 978-92-76-19813-0 doi: 10.2838/211157