Praxis filed a lawsuit to the Higher Court in Belgrade for discrimination in one primary school, because the headmaster refuses to enroll Roma children. Specifically, the parents of three children of Roma nationality wanted to enroll their children in this school, and the headmaster allowed the enrollment for two elder children but she refused to enroll the youngest child, with an explanation that there was no place for the third child, which was not true. Since children could not go to the same school, the parents decided to withdraw two elder children from school, which was what the headmaster aimed at, according to witnesses.  

This school is attended by a very small number of Roma children, while the number of Roma children who attend a nearby school is almost ten times higher. Both schools are located nearby a large Roma settlement. That situation clearly indicates discrimination which is the responsibility of the headmaster.

Therefore, Praxis initiated a civil procedure against the headmaster before the Higher Court in Belgrade. However, the Higher Court rejected the lawsuit with an explanation that in order to conduct a procedure, it is necessary to provide consent of the defendants, because the lawsuit refers to specific persons and not to unspecific group. With that decision, the Court applied the substantial right erroneously and ignored the viewpoint of the Supreme Court of Cassation , which decided in such cases.

Specifically, the lawsuit referred to a group of persons and its purpose is to protect all children of Roma nationality, and not only a child who is prevented to enroll in school. Therefore, Praxis did not need a special authorization given by the defendants. This viewpoint was confirmed also by the Supreme Court of Cassation in the decision reached in the case of McDonalds. Specifically, the Commissioner for Protection of Equality filed a lawsuit for discrimination against McDonald’s restaurant in Novi Sad, because the security prevented the children of Roma nationality to enter the restaurant. Actually, the  Supreme Court of Cassation is of the viewpoint that decisions of low-instance courts that reject such lawsuits must be abolished, because the lawsuit is not directed at establishing discrimination against a specific person, when it would be necessary to provide a written power of attorney, but at discrimination against a specific group, i.e. unspecified number of persons – children of Roma nationality.

The above stated decision of the Higher Court in Belgrade was based on the wrong implementation of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, and consequently establishing of legally relevant facts was missing.  Owing to such practice of competent courts, conducting of already small number of civil procedures for determining discrimination is becoming more difficult and the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination is not adequately implemented, which additionally aggravates the position of vulnerable population groups.