ANNUAL REPORT 2017

Ljubljana, April 2018

Foreword of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality
In the past, there has been a long delay in the systematic work of promoting equality and the prevention of
discrimination. The last report of the former advocate of the principle of equality was presented to the National
Assembly in 2012, after which he did not report anymore because of the protest against the situation in which
he worked. Last year, the first report of the newly created body – the Advocate of the Principle of Equality
was presented in the National Assembly. It outlined the current situation and delays in this area, the difficulties
encountered by the new independent state body, examples of initiatives received by the Advocate of the
Principle of Equality and the standards for the functioning of Equality Bodies being a part of the European
Network of Equality Bodies (Equinet).
All international documents on the promotion of equality and non-discrimination emphasize that National
Equality Bodies, such as the Slovenian Advocate for the Principle of Equality, have an important systemic
role in dealing with various forms of intolerance. The latest of this year's “ECRI General Policy
Recommendation No. 2: Equality bodies to combat racism and intolerance at national level", the unofficial
translation of which is also a part of this year's report, ranks the three main tasks of the Equality Body:




promoting equality and preventing discrimination (including recording, research and awarenessraising);
providing support to those who have been subjected to discrimination and participation in legal
proceedings, and
deciding on the complaints of discrimination received and imposing effective sanctions.

In order to be able to develop all three departments and appropriate administrative and technical support,
which ensures the legal and autonomous functioning of the body, while performing all the substantive tasks
defined in the Protection Against Discrimination Act, sufficient funds are a necessary condition to ensure
working in accordance with national legislation and international recommendations and guidelines.
What can describe the situation of the new authority more graphically than the fact that for the first six months
we were dealing with the argument that for independent functioning, the latter needs financial resources for
the appropriate premises, since the work in one or two offices of the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs
and Equal Opportunities is not the appropriate basis for the establishment of an independent and
autonomous state institution? Only after a year of existence, in October 2017, we were able to move into
suitable premises. How, then, should the Advocate of the Principle of Equality provide the legal protection
for people prescribed by the law, if the basic conditions for work are not guaranteed to the institution?
The broad powers granted to the body in accordance with the directives of the European Union are in
Slovenia prescribed by the Protection Against Discrimination Act and set the starting points for our work.
However, even the Protection Against Discrimination Act is not consistent with how the procedures of the
new body should be conducted. Therefore, we are trying to solve the dilemma of not clearly defined collision
of the general administrative procedure and inspection supervision with the help of internal rules of
procedure. Since there is a lack of relevant legal and other experts employed at the body, the treatment of
proposals to address discrimination are time-consuming and long-lasting processes.
The picture of the work of the new body is better at its systemic part, where last year the first public opinion
poll on discrimination in Slovenia was conducted. This showed that more than a third of the population thinks
that in recent years the situation of inequality and discrimination in the country has deteriorated and people
are largely unaware of where they can turn for help. In order to improve the situation, citizens expect a raise
of awareness and information levels, strengthened relations between people, improved legal and regulatory
arrangements, and improved education and training.
A number of meetings with NGOs have also affected the work of the new body, since they have often
highlighted the systemic aspects of discrimination and expressed multiple expectations for our active
participation in various projects. We are implementing international recommendations at the systemic level,
as we are trying to establish a systematic overview of the discriminatory treatment at the national level. We
have asked various government bodies to report on their policies and measures in the field of discrimination,
without the cooperation of which it will not be possible to change the problematic discriminatory practices.

In ECRI General Policy Recommendation No. 2 is inter alia stated that the protection against discrimination
authorities must have sufficient financial resources to carry out all legally prescribed duties and tasks with a
real effect. Therefore, I must point out at this point that the newly established body in 2018 does not yet have
the appropriate structure for the effective implementation of statutory tasks. Only for the tasks of
administrative and technical support that are until 24 May 2018 conducted by the Ministry of Labour, Family,
Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, there are 19 people authorized to perform the functions of the
secretariat, legal service, human resources management, financial services and main office services.
Together with the Advocate of the Principle of Equality, as of 25 May 2018, there are only 5 employees and
3 interns, whose internships expire in the autumn.
Without new associates, an already small team, rather than discrimination content, and proposals for dealing
with discrimination, will have to deal mainly with technical and administrative tasks in order to ensure the
legal functioning of the body. The latter poses a danger that the content and other systemic tasks deriving
from the Protection Against Discrimination Act will inevitably suffer. Procedural traps and inconsistencies in
the text of the Protection Against Discrimination Act, the urgently constant argumentation of the reasons for
the basic financial means, the failure to take into account our calls and the plans for the proper establishment
of the organ reduce the effective and high-quality support for those who are in need of it.
I have already pointed out these worrying facts multiple times throughout the year of 2017 and also on the
occasion of presenting the report for 2016 to the National Assembly. In June 2017, at the meeting of the
Committee on Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Disability, in October 2017 at the meeting of the Commission
on Petitions, Human Rights and Equal Opportunities, and in November 2017 at the Committee on Finance
and Monetary Affairs. I stressed that failure to take into account financial proposals and basic requirements
of the new emerging autonomous state authority means, consequently, the control over its functioning,
thereby interfering with the independence and conditions for achieving the goals and efficiency of the body.
Therefore, I invite the National Assembly to provide additional funds for the Advocate of the Principle of
Equality for the years 2018 and 2019, in accordance with a written work plan, since less than half of the
necessary funds have been received so far.
According to the law, citizens are entitled to an effective body, comparable with other European equality
bodies, which must have the capacity to successfully deal with discrimination cases and create conditions
for systemic reduction of the latter. For the Republic of Slovenia, it would be the lost opportunity, if after a
few years turns out that the Protection Against Discrimination Act was only adopted to avoid high penalties
from the European Commission, but with no true aim of fundamental changes in this field.
Due to all of the above, I cannot agree with the thesis that the growth of the organ must be gradual and slow,
since this is only a mere attempt to justify an unacceptable situation in which the body cannot fully implement
its statutory tasks. The Advocate of the Principle of Equality must carry out all the tasks prescribed by the
law, not just some. At the time of the establishment, even the minimum funds for establishing and operating
were not guaranteed to the body, let alone to carry out all statutory tasks!
I would like to thank the small team for their devoted work, colleagues at the Ministry of Labour, Family,
Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities for technical and administrative assistance under Article 50 of the
Protection Against Discrimination Act. I would also like to thank the Ministry of Public Administration for
helping with the establishment of a new body.
In line with the second paragraph of Article 22 of the Protection Against Discrimination Act, I propose to the
National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia a regular annual report for 2017.

Miha Lobnik
ADVOCATE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY

Ljubljana, April 2018

SUMMARY
The regular annual report of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality for 2017 consists of several parts. At
the beginning, there is a shorter review of the activities of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality in the
previous year, followed by six substantive parts.
The first part describes the course of establishing the structure in 2017 and the activities for providing basic
working conditions that the independent and autonomous state body needs. In 2017, the main focus was on
establishing basic spatial, personnel and financial conditions for the functioning of the body. Only on 1
October was the body able to move to suitable business premises and only five people were employed,
including the Advocate, and one trainee. Although Slovenia formally noted the independence of this body,
the fact remains that the restriction of the necessary financial resources comparable to other equality bodies
in the European area are disabling the autonomy and independence of the Advocate of the Principle of
Equality. Financial malnutrition, moreover, leads to the urgent redirecting of resources into the legality of the
functioning of the body itself and, to a lesser extent, to the implementation of statutory tasks. This chapter
also provides an overview of the consultations and harmonization of the text of the Rules of Procedure of the
Advocate of the Principle of Equality, since several issues arose last year requiring a deliberate approach to
determining how to deal with discrimination proposals. On the basis of the opinions and legal
recommendations obtained, the adoption of the Rules of Procedure is envisaged this year.
The second part relates to the treatment and identification of discrimination within the framework of the
authority, which includes an overview of the received and completed initiatives and proposals to address
discrimination in the period of 2012-2016. It continues with the statistical survey for 2017, which takes into
account 79 received proposals for dealing with discrimination.
Within the substantive set of systematic tasks in the area of discrimination, data on cases of discrimination
at the national level are presented. Three inspectorates found discrimination in the inspection procedures
and found that the highest number of reported discrimination is in the field of employment and work; regarding
access to goods and services, including the private sector and education and training. Individuals were
discriminated against on the basis of the following personal circumstances: gender, religion or belief,
citizenship and sexual orientation. In 2017, the police dealt with 13 cases of discrimination. From the point of
view of systematic monitoring of the cases of discrimination at the national level in accordance with the
requirements of the Protection Against Discrimination Law, the need for systemic harmonization of the
manner of recording the cases of discrimination in the various institutions is evident.
The promotion of equal treatment at national and local level is presented through the data of ministries and
municipalities on adopted and planned measures of normative and political nature. The responses received,
and in particular the lack of answers, indicate a low level of awareness of the state and local authorities on
the importance of preventing discrimination and promoting equality. In the future, there is a need to increase
awareness of the promotion of equal treatment both within the policy framework as well as in the area of
work and employment within the institutions.
The establishment of dialogue and the participation of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality with nongovernmental organizations in 2017 is also within the third substantive part of the report. NGOs emphasize
the role of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality, in particular, in raising awareness of discrimination,
promotion of problems and reducing prejudice in the public, as well as informing about the opportunities
people have when they are discriminated against.
The fourth round contains activities that took place in the past year in the field of international and bilateral
cooperation. Cooperation was intensively carried out in 2017 within the framework of the European Union
Agency for Fundamental Rights, the Equinet, the Council of Europe and the United Nations bodies. In
bilateral cooperation in 2017, the focus was on organizing a public discussion on the issue of discrimination
in the workplace, in terms of age and gender and the exchange of good practices with the Kingdom of the
Netherlands.
The perception of discrimination in Slovenia includes a summary of the results and an overview of the most
important data from last year's opinion polls. The survey was carried out on a representative sample by sex,
age, region and education. The data show that more than a third of respondents believe that the fight against
inequality is not appropriately (or not at all) provided. Approximately one fifth of respondents think that they
have been discriminated against in the last 12 months.

An unofficial translation of the “ECRI General Policy Recommendation No. 2 "is presented in the sixth section
in three aspects: a summary of key points, the text of the General Recommendation and the Explanatory
Memorandum. The General Recommendation focuses on the key elements necessary for the establishment,
independence and effective functioning of equality bodies which can later effectively affect the field of
equality.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
1.1

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ADVOCATE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY ................... 8
establishing an organizational structure of an independent body ....................................................... 8
1.1.1

Spatial capacities of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality ................................................ 9

1.1.2

Personnel capacities of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality........................................... 9

1.1.3

Financial capacities of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality ............................................ 9

1.2

ORGANIZATION OF WORK ............................................................................................................. 10

1.3

PROCESS OF ADOPTING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ............................................................ 12
1.3.1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 12

2
TREATMENT AND DETECTION OF DISCRIMINATION IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE
AUTHORITY ............................................................................................................................... 13
2.1

LEGAL DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION ..................................................................................... 13

2.2

INITIATIVES AND APPLICATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION FOR THE PERIOD OF 2012-2016 ..... 14

2.3

APPLICATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION IN 2017 .............................................................................. 14

2.4

STATISTICS OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVED IN 2017 ................................................................... 15

3
3.1

3.2

2.4.1

The personal grounds of the alleged discrimination .............................................................. 15

2.4.2

Areas of life where discrimination is occurring ...................................................................... 16

2.4.3

Forms of discrimination .......................................................................................................... 17

2.4.4

Severe forms of discrimination .............................................................................................. 18

2.4.5

Month of filing the application ................................................................................................ 19

2.4.6

Anonymity of applicant ........................................................................................................... 20

2.4.7

Source of applications ........................................................................................................... 20

2.4.8

Manner of submitting the application ..................................................................................... 21

2.4.9

Type of applicant ................................................................................................................... 22

2.4.10

Collective or individual applicants .......................................................................................... 22

2.4.11

Gender ................................................................................................................................... 23

2.4.12

Region .................................................................................................................................... 23

2.4.13

The perpetrator ...................................................................................................................... 24

2.4.14

The alleged systemic basis for discrimination ....................................................................... 25

SYSTEMIC DUTIES OF THE EQUALITY BODY IN THE FIELD OF DISCRIMINATION .... 26
DATA ON THE DISCRIMINATION CASES ON NATIONAL LEVEL................................................. 26
3.1.1

Examined cases of discrimination in 2017 – inspectorates ................................................... 27

3.1.2

Analysis of data on the cases of discrimination dealt by inspectorates in 2017 .................... 27

3.1.3

Cases of discrimination in 2017 dealt with by the Law Enforcement .................................... 30

3.1.4

Cases of discrimination in 2017 dealt with by the Ombudsperson ........................................ 31

PROMOTING EQUAL TREATMENT ON NATIONAL AND LOCAL LEVELS .................................. 31
3.2.1

Ministries' reports on measures taken to promote equal treatment ...................................... 33
6

3.2.1.1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 33

3.2.1.2

Overview of measures and activities to promote equal treatment by ministries ............... 33

3.2.1.3

Analysis of measures and activities to promote equal treatment by ministries ................. 33

3.2.2

3.3

3.4

4
4.1

4.2

Municipalities’ report on measures to promote equal treatment ............................................ 35

3.2.2.1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 35

3.2.2.2

Analysis of measures and activities by city municipalities ................................................. 35

COOPERATION AND DIALOGUE WITH NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS .................. 36
3.3.1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 36

3.3.2

Analysis of the views exposed by non-governmental organizations during the dialogue ..... 37

BILATERAL COOPERATION ............................................................................................................ 38

PERCEPTION OF DISCRIMINATION IN SLOVENIA – PUBLIC OPINION POLL .............. 39
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC OPINION POLL RESULTS – DISCRIMINATION IN SLOVENIA .............. 39
4.1.1

About the public opinion poll .................................................................................................. 39

4.1.2

A summary of the key findings of the public opinion poll ....................................................... 40

4.1.3

Summary of key responses with the alleged personal experience of discrimination ............ 41

A DETAILED OVERVIEW OF THE RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC OPINION POLL .......................... 42
4.2.1

A general overview of the perception of discrimination ......................................................... 42

4.2.1.1

Interpretation of the concept of discrimination ................................................................... 42

4.2.1.2

Perpetrators of discrimination ............................................................................................ 43

4.2.1.3

The prevalence of discrimination in Slovenia .................................................................... 44

4.2.1.4

Victims of discrimination, according to the respondents ................................................... 45

4.2.1.5

Areas of discrimination according to the respondents ....................................................... 46

4.2.1.6

Reasons for discrimination - personal grounds according to the respondents ................. 47

4.2.1.7

Reporting discrimination .................................................................................................... 48

4.2.1.8

To whom would you turn to help? ...................................................................................... 49

4.2.1.9

What is the situation with regard to the prevention of discrimination in recent years? ...... 50

4.2.1.10 How is the prevention of discrimination organized in the country? ................................... 51
4.2.1.11 How to improve the situation in the field of discrimination prevention ............................... 52
4.2.1.12 Affiliation to vulnerable groups ........................................................................................... 53
4.2.2

5

Personal experience of discrimination ................................................................................... 54

4.2.2.1

Areas of discrimination ...................................................................................................... 55

4.2.2.2

Personal grounds of discrimination ................................................................................... 56

4.2.2.3

To what extent have they turned to help due to discrimination ......................................... 57

4.2.2.4

Reasons why they did not turn to help .............................................................................. 57

4.2.3

Other views of respondents on discrimination ....................................................................... 58

4.2.4

Knowledge about legislation and institutions in the field of non-discrimination ..................... 60

4.2.5

Knowledge about the role of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality ................................. 63

DICTIONARY OF TERMS................................................................................................... 64

7

1 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ADVOCATE OF THE PRINCIPLE
OF EQUALITY
1.1 ESTABLISHING AN ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF AN
INDEPENDENT BODY

Establishing a new independent state body is a demanding process, which depends to a large extent on
having sufficient financial resources to enable the employment of suitable personnel and the management
of spatial and work-necessary infrastructure.
On 21 April 2016, the National Assembly adopted Protection Against Discrimination Act (PADA), which
provides the legal basis for the creation of a new independent and autonomous body - the Advocate of the
Principle of Equality. With such an arrangement, the Republic of Slovenia approached the requirements of
the European legal order. Prior to the adoption of the PADA, the procedure for violating European Union
law was formally introduced against the state of Slovenia in a letter of formal notice from the European
Commission: violation no. 2014/2093.
PADA entered into force on 24 May 2016, and since then, in accordance with Article 50 of the PADA, the
period of two years has passed since the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities
(hereinafter: MDDSZEM) carries out administrative and technical tasks for the operation of the Advocate of
the Principle of Equality. Five months after the entry into force of the PADA, the equality body was given its
head with the appointment in the National Assembly, on 25 October, who took office on the following day
with the decision of the Electoral Commission of the National Assembly.
The next month, the handover procedures and the examination of the documentation of the previous
advocate were acquired. In accordance with Article 50 of the PADA, the preparation of formal registration
procedures (registration number, tax number, budget funds...) and the establishment of a new body
followed. On 1 January 2017, the Advocate of the Principle of Equality (hereinafter: Advocate) entered the
budget as a direct budget user.
The Advocate started his work in October 2016 in one of the offices in the premises of the MDDSZEM and
with one employee – himself. As of 1 October 2017, the body moved to its rented premises, and in October
2017, in addition to the Advocate, there were four other employees (two full-time employees and two fixedterm employees).
With perseverance and decisiveness, the organ was initially established, but we cannot yet talk about its
development, since this year we are faced with an additional challenge, when the MDDSZEM will no longer
provide administrative and technical support that is currently conducted by 19 authorized persons for the
Advocate of the Principle of Equality. Therefore, when establishing an independent administrative and
technical service, additional financial and personnel burdens are expected, which have not yet been taken
into account in the current budget.
At this point we can conclude that the understandable dissatisfaction of the complainants was indirectly also
caused by the absence of a transitional period in the PADA, which, with the appropriate financial budget of
the body, would determine the time allocated to the technical, administrative, legal, spatial and personnel
processes necessary for the operational and functional establishment of a new organ. In the past year, the
establishment of an independently and autonomously functioning body has been a priority. For the stated
reasons, it is still not possible to carry out all the tasks and duties of the body in accordance with Article 21
of the PADA.

8

1.1.1 Spatial capacities of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality
At the beginning of the year, spatial conditions were not managed properly and funds for renting independent
premises were not provided. Thus, the Advocate and colleagues operated in two offices in the premises of
the MDDSZEM until October 2017. Only on 1 October 2017, on the basis of the governmental guarantee of
additional funds for the premises that allow normal working processes, the Advocate of the Principle of
Equality was able to rent an office at Železna cesta 16.

1.1.2 Personnel capacities of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality
At the beginning of the year, spatial conditions were not managed properly and funds for renting independent
premises were not provided. Thus, the Advocate and colleagues operated in two offices in the premises of
the MDDSZEM until October 2017. Only on 1 October 2017, on the basis of the governmental guarantee of
additional funds for the premises that allow normal working processes, the Advocate of the Principle of
Equality was able to rent an office at Železna cesta 16.

1.1.3 Financial capacities of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality
In 2017, the Advocate spent a total of 225,352 euros of budgetary funds for its establishment and operation.
In the spring of 2017, the Advocate prepared its first precisely defined phase, material and financial plan for
2018 and 2019. In order to carry out a minimum amount of statutory duties and tasks, the Advocate for the
year 2018 envisaged a financial plan in the amount of € 1,110,000. When the budget was amended, the
Ministry of Finance allocated only € 500,000 to the Advocate for the 2018 budget, which amounts to less
than half of the urgently needed budget funds.
Warnings of the Advocate that the funds allocated do not enable the implementation of all the statutory tasks,
have additional argumentation also in Article 50 of the PADA, where the MDDSZEM provides administrative
and technical assistance to the functioning of the body only until May 2018. After this period, the Advocate
must provide adequate personnel infrastructure for independent operation (establishment of an independent
secretariat, personnel and budgetary services and head office) and the implementation of tasks defined by
law, which are related to the promotion of equality and the prevention of discrimination.
Based on the organizational structure deriving from the PADA, the recommendations of the European
Commission for Combating Racism and Intolerance of the Council of Europe (ECRI) for equality bodies, and
the work plan of the Advocate, the funds for the autonomous operation of the body are estimated at €
1,110,000 annually. The purpose of the Advocate's financial plan is to provide an appropriate structure that
will enable the broader synergistic effects of such an organ to be achieved.
Although Slovenia has envisaged the independence of this body in the law, the fact remains that since the
limitations of the necessary financial resources comparable to other equality bodies in the European area,
we cannot talk about the actual autonomy and independence of this body. The financial malnutrition of the
Advocate leads to the urgent redirecting of resources into the legality of the functioning of the body itself and
to a smaller extent the implementation of statutory tasks.
Taking into account the long delay in the systematic work in this field, which was the reason for the European
Commission's procedure against the Republic of Slovenia, which helped to this autonomous and
independent body finally being founded, we can detect the risk that the content that the body should be
implementing and providing are still only guaranteed in principle but not implemented in practice due to the
lack of financial resources.

9

1.2

ORGANIZATION OF WORK

The organization of the Advocate's work is derived from the provisions of the PADA and is in line with the
"ECRI General Policy Recommendation No. 2", adopted by the European Commission for Combating
Racism and Intolerance of the Council of Europe (ECRI) at ministerial level this year.
Article 1 of PADA defines the purpose of the law, which is the protection against discrimination irrespective
of their gender, nationality, racial or ethnic origin, language, religion or belief, disability, age, sexual
orientation, gender identity or gender expression, social status, property status, education, or any other
personal ground. Personal grounds that can be the basis for discrimination include, in addition to the above,
pregnancy, parenting, health, skin colour, etc.
The Act defines protection against discrimination in various fields of social life, when enforcing human rights
and fundamental freedoms, exercising rights and obligations and in other legal relationships in political,
economic, social, cultural, civil or other fields.
In accordance with the powers and duties arising from the PADA, and taking into account ECRI General
Policy Recommendation No. 2, the organizational structure of the Advocate is divided into:
-

Department for systematic monitoring, promotion of equality and prevention in the area of
discrimination,
Department for counselling, advocacy and decision-making on discrimination,
the Inspection Department and
the Secretariat performing the support tasks.

10

11

1.3 PROCESS OF ADOPTING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE
1.3.1 Introduction
The Advocate in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 32 of the PADA (Official Gazette of the
Republic of Slovenia, No. 33/2016) regulates its organization and procedure with Rules of Procedure and
other general acts. PADA stipulates that the Advocate issues the Rules of Procedure within three months of
the appointment. With the first activities related to the preparation of the Rules of Procedure, the Advocate
began immediately after the start of work of the first public employee, i.e. in March 2017. Due to some unclear
legal provisions, the Advocate submitted to the draftsman of PADA - MDDSZEM – in April 2017 an application
for an opinion on some outstanding issues, dilemmas and draft rules of procedure and requested that the
competent ministry consider whether the drafted Rules of Procedure follow the objectives and purpose that
was drafted by the law maker through the adoption of PADA. The Advocate obtained the opinion of the
MDDSZEM; at the same time, as it is evident from the timetable, it also kept a dialogue with other external
stakeholders, including the Ministry of Justice, which also participated in the preparation of the PADA, and
has, in relation to the very nature of the Rules of Procedure, taken a different view from the aforementioned
MDDSZEM. The Advocate also engaged an external legal adviser who, during the period from 4 October
2017 until 22 November 2017, also cooperated and advised in the preparation of the Advocate's Rules of
Procedure. In the spring of 2018, the Advocate prepared the latest version of the Rules of Procedure, in line
with the observations presented at a joint meeting with the Ministry of Justice (hereinafter: the MP) on 28
November 2017 and asked the aforementioned Ministry to make submissions. At all times, the Advocate was
also in the process of internal coordination of the Rules of Procedure in accordance with individual opinions
obtained from other bodies and legal experts, as well as ECRI guidelines.

12

2 TREATMENT AND DETECTION OF DISCRIMINATION IN
THE FRAMEWORK OF THE AUTHORITY
2.1 LEGAL DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION
Article 1 of the PADA defines the purpose and content of the law, which is to provide protection against
discrimination for individuals, on the basis of their personal grounds. PADA summarizes, in particular, the
personal circumstances listed in the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia and in the Penal Code (Official
Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 50/12 - official consolidated text, 6/16 - popr., 54/15 and 38/16).
These personal circumstances are: gender, nationality, racial or ethnic origin, language, religion or belief,
disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, social status, property status,
education, or any other personal ground. Personal grounds that can be the basis for discrimination include,
in addition to the above, pregnancy, parenting, health, skin colour, etc.
Article 2 of the PADA provides protection against discrimination in various fields of social life, when
enforcing human rights and fundamental freedoms, exercising rights and obligations and in other legal
relationships in political, economic, social, cultural, civil or other fields.
The PADA in various articles, in accordance with the EU Directives, as the third aspect of the definition of
discrimination identifies different forms of discrimination where special attention is given to the more severe
forms of discrimination.
For the existence of discrimination, the purpose of the perpetrator discriminating against anyone is not
necessary; it is enough that discrimination has occurred or could have occurred. Protection against
discrimination is also guaranteed by law to persons who are in any way (in law or in fact) connected with a
person with a particular personal circumstance (e.g. spouse, relative, etc.), and persons who are
discriminated against due to a particular personal ground that is attributed to them, which they do not actually
have.
In order to determine discrimination, it is therefore necessary to establish the form of discrimination, define
the area in which discrimination has taken place and the personal grounds upon which discrimination is
occurring. Only such practices are legally considered discrimination. If either of these three criteria are not
met despite the presence of the other two elements, the act cannot be legally defined as discrimination.

13

2.2 INITIATIVES AND APPLICATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION FOR
THE PERIOD OF 2012-2016
Upon handing over the work of the previous advocate, it turned out that a large amount of the open cases
for the period 2012-2016 had not yet been closed. The vast majority were initiatives and applications that
should be dealt with in accordance with the Implementation of the Principle of Equal Treatment Act
(hereinafter: ZUNEO). From 24.5.2016 until 31.12.2016, there were already proposals for the treatment of
discrimination that have to be dealt with in accordance with the PADA.
In the period 2012-2016, 258 applications and proposals for dealing with discrimination were received; of
which 192 cases were closed, and 66 cases are still pending.
In 2012, 45 applications and initiatives were received, 43 were closed, 2 cases are under consideration. In
2013, 54 applications and initiatives were received by the body, 51 were closed, another 3 cases are under
consideration. In 2014, 46 applications and initiatives were received, 43 were closed, and 3 cases are still
pending. In 2015, 45 applications were received and initiatives, 32 of them were closed, 13 cases are still
under consideration. In 2016, 68 applications, complaints and proposals for discrimination were received, 23
cases were closed, and another 45 cases are under consideration.

Table: Review of applications of discrimination for the period of 2012–2016

Together
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012

Received
cases
258
68
45
46
54
45

Closed
cases
192
23
32
43
51
43

Cases being
dealt with
66
45
13
3
3
2

2.3 APPLICATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION IN 2017
Below is an analysis of the applications of discrimination received in 2017. Treatment of the applications of
discrimination is fully regulated by the PADA.
In 2017, the Advocate registered 82 cases as applications of discrimination, but three cases did not
correspond to the application of discrimination and were not taken into account in the following tables. The
2017 survey therefore only takes into account the 79 applications received.
The main reason for non-compliance with the applications of discrimination is the failure to adopt the Rules
of Procedure due to dilemmas when regulating the proper procedure for dealing with applications. In the year
2017, when discussing the Rules of Procedure, a number of issues were raised that require a deliberate and
long-term approach to determining the way to deal with discrimination applications. Therefore, an exchange
of views and coordination with some ministries and legal experts took place in the past year. On the basis of
the opinions and legal recommendations obtained, adoption of the Rules of Procedure is foreseen in May
this year. The content and procedure for adopting the Rules of Procedure is described in Chapter 4: The
process of adopting the Rules of Procedure.

In addition, in 2017, the main focus was on establishing the basic spatial, personnel and financial
conditions for the functioning of the body. At the beginning of the year, spatial conditions were not
14

managed properly and funds for renting independent spaces were not provided. Only on 1 October
was the Advocate able to move to suitable business premises and only five people were employed
at that time, including the Advocate and one trainee. The implementation of procedures for
employment and other procedures that ensure the transparency and lawful functioning of the body
have largely marked the year 2017, taking into account the severe financial malnutrition of the
body.

2.4 STATISTICS OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVED IN 2017
The review of the statistics of the applications received in 2017 describes the personal grounds upon which
the applicants claim discrimination, as well as the areas of life where they were allegedly discriminated
against. Also, data on the form of discrimination reported in 2017 are covered.

2.4.1 The personal grounds of the alleged discrimination
The most frequently alleged personal ground of discrimination in 2017 was disability (in 11 cases or 13.92
per cent). The alleged personal circumstances of gender, religious beliefs and racial or ethnic origin appeared
in 10 cases, or 12.66 per cent. In 2017, there were no proposals to address discrimination in which
discrimination would be alleged for the following personal grounds: language, gender identity, sexual
expression and education.
In the table below, the sum of listed personal grounds is not counted in the total number of initiatives (79)
received in 2017. The reason for this is that one case can claim discrimination on the basis of multiple
personal grounds at the same time or personal grounds as the cause of discrimination not being specified at
all.

Table 1: Alleged personal grounds of discrimination
I. Alleged personal grounds of discrimination
1 gender

No.

%

10

12,66

2 nationality

3

3,80

2.1 race or ethnic origin

10

12,66

2.2 language

0

0,00

3 religion or belief

10

12,66

4 disability

11

13,92

5 age

3

3,80

6 sexual orientation

4

5,06

7 gender identity

0

0,00

8 gender expression

0

0,00

9 social status

3

3,80

10 property status

2

2,53

11 education

0

0,00

12.1 other – citizen of another EU member state
12.2 other – citizen of a third country
NP (no data)

1
1
27

1,27
1,27
34,18

15

2.4.2 Areas of life where discrimination is occurring
In 2017 there were as many as 18 cases of discrimination in the area of access to goods and services
available to the public, including housing. 16 cases were in the area of employment and working conditions,
including the termination of employment contracts and wages. This is followed by the area of social
protection, including social security and health care, where there were 9 cases and the area of education,
with 8 applications for dealing with discrimination. In 2017, there was no case in the field of membership and
involvement in the organization of workers or employers or in any organization whose members perform a
particular profession, including the benefits provided by such organizations.
In the table below, the sum of these areas of life is not counted in the total number of initiatives (79) received
in 2017, as one case may include suspicion of discrimination in several areas of life at the same time or in
none of the areas listed.
Table 1: Areas of life where discrimination is occurring
No.

%

1. conditions for obtaining employment, self-employment and profession,
including selection criteria and employment conditions, notwithstanding
the type of activity or the level of occupational hierarchy, including
promotion

5

6,33

2. accessing all forms and all levels of career orientation and consulting,
vocational and professional education and training, further vocational
training and retraining, including internship

2

2,53

3. employment and working conditions, including termination of
employment contracts and wages

16

20,25

4. membership and inclusion in workers’ or employers’ organisations or
any organisation whose members perform a certain vocation, including
benefits provided by such organisations

0

0,00

5. social protection, including social security and health care

9

11,39

6. social benefits

1

1,27

7. education and schooling

8

10,13

8. accessing goods and services available to the public, including
housing facilities and the supply of housing facilities

18

22,78

NP (no data)

10

12,66

II. Areas of life where discrimination is occurring

16

2.4.3 Forms of discrimination
PADA lists various forms of discrimination. The most often alleged form of discrimination is direct
discrimination (60 cases or 75.95 percent). The second most common form of discrimination is harassment
(18 cases or 22.78 percent), followed by indirect discrimination (13 cases or 16.46 percent), and incitement
of discrimination in 6 cases or 7.59 percent. In 2017, the Advocate did not receive any proposal to deal with
discrimination that would claim the following form of discrimination: sexual harassment or instruction to
discriminate.
In the table below, the sum of these areas of life is not counted in the total number of initiatives (79) received
in 2017 - one example can show the characteristics of several forms of discrimination at the same time.
Table 3: Forms of discrimination
III. Forms of discrimination

No.

%

Indirect discrimination

13

16,46

Direct discrimination

60

75,95

Harassment

18

22,78

Sexual harassment

0

0,00

Instructions on discrimination

0

0,00

Inciting discrimination

6

7,59

Victimisation

4

5,06

17

2.4.4 Severe forms of discrimination
The most commonly claimed severe form of discrimination is persistent and repeated discrimination in 31
cases, or 39.24 percent. In 30 cases, or 37.97 percent, mass discrimination is individually filed and in 28
cases, or 35.44 percent, discrimination that has or could have consequences for the person subject to
discrimination that are difficult to remedy.
In the table below, the sum of these areas of life is not counted in the total number of initiatives (79) received
in 2017 – one example can show the characteristics of several forms of discrimination at the same time.

Table 4: Severe forms of discrimination
No.

%

Multiple discriminations

8

10,13

Mass discrimination (collectively lodged application)

2

2,53

Mass discrimination (individually lodged application)

30

37,97

Persistent and repeated discrimination

31

39,24

Discrimination with consequences difficult to remedy

28

35,44

Discrimination of children

7

8,86

Discrimination of other weak persons
Delivering or disseminating racist, religious, national and sexually
discriminatory appeals, inducing, abetting or inciting hatred and
discrimination, and broader public haranguing which promotes
discrimination

7

8,86

1

1,27

IV. Severe forms of discrimination

18

2.4.5 Month of filing the application
The month in which most of the applications were submitted in 2017 was January – 15 proposals to address
discrimination. Followed by June with 11 suggestions. In the remaining months, the proposals submitted
were fairly moderate, except in November when only 1 application came to the body. It is interesting that in
2016, exactly in November, one month after the appointment of the head of the new body, the most
applications were received.

Table 5: Month of filing the application
Month of filing the application

No.

%

January

15

19,99

February

6

7,59

March

5

6,33

April

9

11,39

May

7

8,86

June

11

13,92

July

4

5,06

August

6

7,59

September

3

3,80

October

7

8,86

November

1

1,27

December

5

6,33

19

2.4.6 Anonymity of applicant
In 2017, the application for the hearing was anonymous only in 4 cases or 5.06 percent. In 75 cases or
94.94 percent, the applicant was known.

Table 6: Anonymity of applicant
No.

%

Anonym applicant

4

5,06

Known applicant

75

94,94

Anonymity of applicant

2.4.7 Source of applications
The most common applications are directly filed by the injured party (53 cases or 67.09 percent). In 2017,
there were 10 or 12.66 percent withdrawals of applications by other state bodies, and 11 or 13.92 percent of
indirectly submitted applications for dealing with discrimination.

Table 7: Source of applications
Source of applications

No.

%

Directly from the victim

53

67,09

Indirect

11

13,92

Hand the case over to another authority

10

12,66

NP (no data)

3

3,80

NR (irrelevant)

2

2,53

20

2.4.8 Manner of submitting the application
E-mails prevail (32 cases) among the ways of submitting an application for discrimination, followed by a
form on the Advocate's website (24 cases). From 2016, the number of proposals submitted via regular mail
increased, the same as in the previous year. Only 1 application for dealing with discrimination was
submitted over the phone.

Table 8: Manner of submitting the application
Manner of submitting the application

No.

%

E-mail

32

40,51

Forms on the website

24

30,38

Post

20

25,32

Phone

1

1,27

In person – record

0

0,00

In person – brought in

0

0,00

NP (no data)

2

2,53

21

2.4.9 Type of applicant
In 2017, the majority, i.e. 69, submitted applications were filed by natural persons, while 7 proposals for
consideration were submitted by legal entities.
Table 9: Type of applicant
Type of applicant

No.

%

Natural person

69

87,34

Legal entity

7

8,86

Institution

1

1,27

NP (no data)

2

2,53

2.4.10 Collective or individual applicants
Collective application means that the Advocate of the Principle of Equality received an application from
multiple applicants simultaneously. Also, legal entities were considered as collective applicants.
Only in 5 cases was there a collective applicant, and the remaining 74 proposals were filed by individuals.

Table 10: Collective or individual applicants
Applicant

No.

%

Collective

5

6,33

Individual

74

93,67

22

2.4.11 Gender
Applications for dealing with discrimination were in 43 cases, more than 50 per cent of all that were filed,
submitted by men. Meanwhile, women filed only 24 applications, which is a good 30 per cent. In the case of
collective applicants or institutions as applicants, the data was recorded as NR - not relevant.
Table 11: Gender
Gender

No.

%

Female

24

30,38

Male

43

54,43

Non-binary

0

0,00

Other

0

0,00

NP (no data)

3

3,80

NR (irrelevant)

9

11,39

2.4.12 Region
The region with the largest number of applications is Osrednjeslovenska region (27 proposals or one third
of all proposals), followed by Podravska region (12 proposals or more than 15 percent). In almost 30
percent of the applications the region is not visible.
Table 12: Region
No.

%

1. Pomurska

2

2,53

2. Podravska

12

15,19

3. Koroška

0

0,00

4. Savinjska

2

2,53

5. Zasavska

0

0,00

6. Spodnjeposavska

2

2,53

7. Jugovzhodna Slovenija

4

5,06

8. Osrednjeslovenska

27

34,18

9. Gorenjska

2

2,53

10. Obalno-kraška

3

3,80

11. Goriška

0

0,00

12. Notranjsko-kraška

1

1,27

NP (no data)

22

27,85

NR (irrelevant)

2

2,53

Region

23

2.4.13 The perpetrator
The most commonly claimed perpetrator in 2017 was a legal entity, which is in 54 cases or in two thirds of
all cases. Only in 12 cases was the alleged perpetrator a natural person.

Table 13: Alleged perpetrator
Perpetrator

No.

%

Natural person

12

15,19

Legal entity

53

67,09

System, legislation

0

0,00

NP (no data)

5

6,33

NR (irrelevant)

9

11,39

We categorized perpetrators into three bigger groups – legal entities subjected to private law, legal entities
subjected to public law and authoritative and legal entities subjected to public law – non-authoritative. Each
of these categories splits further in multiple groups; the division can be seen in table 14 – Groups and subgroups of perpetrators.

Table 14: groups and sub-groups of alleged perpetrators
Perpetrator – more detailed

No.

%

PRAVNA OSEBA JAVNEGA PRAVA – OBLASTVENA

5

6,33

Court

1

1,27

Administration unit

1

1,27

Centre for social work

3

3,80

PRAVNA OSEBA JAVNEGA PRAVA – NEOBLASTVENA

12

15,19

Institution

12

15,19

School

0

0,00

Educational centre

0

0,00

PRAVNA OSEBA ZASEBNEGA PRAVA

23

29,11

Employer

9

11,39

Service provider

14

17,72

NP (no data)

13

16,46

The most frequently cited category is a legal entity subjected to private law, which is in 23 cases. A legal
entity subjected to public law – non-authoritative was listed in 12 cases, and a legal entity subjected to public
law – authoritative was cited in 5 cases.
Within the category of legal entities subjected to private law, in 14 cases a perpetrator was the service
provider (over 17%) and the in 9 cases (over 11%) the employer.
In the category of legal entities subjected to public law – non-authoritative the most listed was a public
institution, found in 12 cases, more than 15%.
Within the category of legal entities subjected to public law – authoritative, the most frequently listed is the
Centre for Social Work in 3 cases, followed by the court and the administrative unit in one case each.

24

2.4.14 The alleged systemic basis for discrimination
7 applications, or a good 8% of all applications, assert a systemic or legal basis for discrimination. In 37
proposals or over 46 percent, systemic discrimination cannot be detected. For the remaining 34
applications, it was not clear whether the systemic basis for discrimination was alleged.
Table 15: The alleged systemic basis for discrimination
No.

%

Yes

7

8,86

No

37

46,84

NP (no data)

34

43,04

NR (irrelevant)

1

1,27

The alleged systemic basis for discrimination

25

3 SYSTEMIC DUTIES OF THE EQUALITY BODY IN THE FIELD
OF DISCRIMINATION
3.1 DATA ON THE DISCRIMINATION CASES ON NATIONAL
LEVEL
Chapter 3 of the PADA also requires the Advocate to monitor the state of discrimination in Slovenia. In
accordance with Article 16 of the PADA, the Advocate and competent inspectors collect anonymised data
on the number of cases of discrimination under consideration of individual personal grounds, forms of
discrimination and individual areas discrimination is occurring. Inspectors provide these data to the Advocate
once a year. This information is collected and used for monitoring, planning and management of nondiscriminatory policies and for scientific research purposes.
Within the framework of the tasks and powers specified in Article 21 of the PADA, the Advocate is obliged to
monitor the general situation in the Republic of Slovenia in the field of protection against discrimination and
the situation of persons with certain personal grounds. In order to comply with the provisions of the law on
the monitoring of the general state of affairs in the Republic of Slovenia in the field of protection against
discrimination and the situation of persons with certain personal grounds, the Advocate forwarded to the
competent authorities a request for the transmission of data on the number of cases of discrimination in 2017
according to individual personal grounds, forms and areas of discrimination.
The collection of such data by the inspection bodies is determined by Article 16 of the PADA: " The Advocate
and competent inspection services from Article 44 of this Act shall collect anonymised data on the number
of discrimination cases discussed according to individual personal circumstances, forms of discrimination
and individual fields from Article 2 of this Act. The inspection services shall submit these data to the
Advocate once a year. The data from the preceding paragraph shall be collected and used for monitoring,
planning and managing the non-discriminatory policy and for scientific and research purposes.”
In accordance with Article 21 of the PADA, the Advocate, in order to monitor, record and evaluate the situation
in the field of protection against discrimination in the Republic of Slovenia, collects data on the cases dealt
with, which fulfil the signs of a criminal offense under Article 297 of the Penal Code (KZ-1) public incitement
to hatred, violence or intolerance related to any personal ground (gender, nationality, race or ethnic origin,
jet, religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation, sexual identity and sexual expression, social status,
education or other) and as such could be the acts of discrimination in accordance with the PADA.
With the purpose of monitoring and a comprehensive assessment of the situation in the field of protection
against discrimination, the Advocate also asked the Ombudsman for data on cases of discrimination from
2017.

26

3.1.1

Examined cases of discrimination in 2017 – inspectorates

The Advocate sent a request for a data transfer in accordance with Article 16 of the ZVarD to the addresses
of 25 inspection bodies:
1. Information Commissioner,
2. The Public Agency for Civil Aviation of the Republic of Slovenia,
3. The Agency for Communication Networks and Services of the RS,
4. The Public Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices,
5. Labour Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia,
6. Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia for Agriculture, Forestry, Hunting and Fisheries,
7. The Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia for Culture and Media,
8. The Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia for Internal Affairs,
9. The Defense Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia,
10. Inspectorate for protection against natural and other disasters,
11. The Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia for Education and Sport,
12. The Public Sector Inspectorate,
13. Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia for Infrastructure,
14. Health Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia,
15. Market inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia,
16. The Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia for the Environment and Spatial Planning,
17. The Financial Administration of the Republic of Slovenia,
18. Budget Supervision Office of the Republic of Slovenia - Budgetary Inspectorate,
19. The Administration for Food Safety, Veterinary and Plant Protection,
20. Administration of the Republic of Slovenia for Maritime Affairs - Maritime inspection,
21. Chemicals Bureau - Chemicals Inspection,
22. Administration of the Republic of Slovenia for Radiation Protection - Radiation Protection Inspection,
23. Metrology Institute of the Republic of Slovenia - Metrological Control Sector,
24. The Nuclear Safety Administration of the Republic of Slovenia - Nuclear Safety Inspection,
25. Ministry of Public Administration - Directorate for Information Society - Electronic Signature
Inspector.

3.1.2 Analysis of data on the cases of discrimination dealt by inspectorates in
2017
Of the 25 inspection bodies that the Advocate sent an application for the transmission of anonymised data,
17 respondents replied. 8 inspectorates did not reply: Inspectorate for Agriculture, Forestry, Hunting and
Fisheries, Inspectorate for the Interior, Inspectorate for the Public Sector, Inspectorate for Infrastructure,
Administration for Food Safety, Veterinary and Plant Protection, Radiation Protection Administration Radiation Protection Inspection, Metrology Office - Metrological Control Sector, Nuclear Safety
Administration - Radiation Safety Inspectorate.
Out of the 17 responses received in the year 2017, 13 inspection bodies did not deal with any cases of
discrimination by individual personal grounds, forms of discrimination and areas of the latter. These
inspection bodies are: Public Aviation Agency, Budget Supervision Office, Culture and Media Inspectorate,
Agency for Communication Networks and Services, Chemicals Bureau, Inspectorate for Protection against
Natural and Other Disasters, Inspectorate for the Environment and Spatial Planning, Financial Management
, The Maritime Administration, the Health Inspectorate, the Public Agency for Medicinal Products and Medical
Devices, the Information Commissioner and the Electronic Signature Inspector.

Table: Review of data on the cases of discrimination dealt by inspectorates in 2017
Inspection institution

No. of
received
discrimination
applications

27

No. of cases in
which
discrimination
was found

Notes

1

Market inspectorate of the
Republic of Slovenia

7

4

2

Labour Inspectorate of the
Republic of Slovenia

/

11

3

The Defense Inspectorate
of the Republic of Slovenia

5

0

4

The Inspectorate of the
Republic of Slovenia for
Education and Sport

9

5

The Public Agency for Civil
Aviation of the Republic of
Slovenia
Budget Supervision Office
of the Republic of Slovenia
- Budgetary Inspectorate
The Inspectorate of the
Republic of Slovenia for
Culture and Media
The Agency for
Communication Networks
and Services of the
Republic of Slovenia

0

Chemicals Bureau Chemicals Inspection
Inspectorate for protection
against natural and other
disasters
The Inspectorate of the
Republic of Slovenia for
the Environment and
Spatial Planning
The Financial
Administration of the
Republic of Slovenia
Administration of the
Republic of Slovenia for
Maritime Affairs - Maritime
inspection
Health Inspectorate of the
Republic of Slovenia
The Public Agency of the
Republic of Slovenia for
Medicinal Products and
Medical Devices
Information Commissioner
Electronic Signature
Inspector

0

6
7
8

9
10
11

12
13

14
15

16
17

0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

28

Anonymized case
summaries also
submitted
Underlined the
difficulties with
recording
discrimination cases
by personal
circumstances, areas
of life and forms of
discrimination
In 3 cases,
discrimination was
not found, one case
was time-barred, and
one case remained
open
9 of the received
cases were referred
to the Advocate of
the Principle of
Equality

Three inspectorates found discrimination in the inspection procedures.
With regard to access to goods and services available to the public, the Market Inspectorate dealt with 7
cases and found discrimination in 4 cases with the following personal grounds: gender, sexual orientation,
citizenship and local affiliation.
The Labour Inspectorate found discrimination in 11 cases, out of which 5 cases were in violation of the
prohibition of discrimination against candidates in employment, and in 6 cases the discrimination of workers
during the duration of the employment relationship with the rights arising from employment relationships took
place (annual leave, public announcement of a vacancy, posting workers waiting for work at home...).
In the cases identified, there has been discrimination due to the following personal grounds: religion or belief,
gender, family relationship or personal acquaintance with the responsible person at the employer, the
duration of employment and the long-term absence from work for the reasons regarding health.
In most of the cases listed there was direct discrimination (7 cases), in 3 cases there was indirect
discrimination, and in 1 case victimization. In one of the identified cases of indirect discrimination, there was
also a severe form of discrimination used, based on several personal grounds that could include pregnancy,
maternity, parenthood, disability etc.
The Defense Inspectorate found out in 5 cases examined that in 3 cases there was no discrimination, 1
case was time-barred, and 1 case has not yet been closed.
In 2017, the Inspectorate for Education and Sport received 9 applications for violation of the PADA
provisions. All 9 cases were resigned to the Advocate of the Principle of Equality.
According to the data received from the inspectorates, the highest number of reported discrimination cases
was in the field of employment and work; also in the field of access to goods and services, including the
private sector and in the field of education and training. The applications addressed by the Defense
Inspectorate are in most cases related to the field of work and career advancement.
Data in the field of discrimination also coincides with the framework estimates of applications received by the
Advocate in 2017. 18 applications were from the area of access to goods and services available to the public,
and 16 applications were made in the field of employment conditions and working conditions, including the
termination of the employment contract and salaries.
Despite the fact that the Health Inspectorate did not address any case of discrimination in the field of health
care, the Advocate received 9 applications that claimed discrimination in the area of social protection,
including social security and health care.
In the presented cases, the inspectorates found that persons were discriminated against on the basis of the
following personal grounds: gender, religion or belief, citizenship, sexual orientation, local affiliation and
others.
The Advocate found in the analysis of the applications that arrived at the Advocate that the most often alleged
personal ground was disability, followed by the alleged personal ground of gender, religious belief and racial
or ethnic origin, which each appeared in 10 cases.

29

3.1.3

Cases of discrimination in 2017 dealt with by the Law Enforcement

In accordance with Article 21 of the PADA, the Advocate, in order to monitor, record and submit an
assessment of the situation in the field of protection against discrimination in the Republic of Slovenia, also
collects data on the cases dealt with which fulfil the signs of a criminal offense under Article 297 of the
Penal Code (KZ-1), i.e. public incitement of hatred, violence or intolerance related to any personal ground
(gender, nationality, race or ethnic origin, language, religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation,
sexual identity and sexual expression, social status, education or other) and as such could be acts of
discrimination in accordance with the PADA.
In 2017, the police dealt with 13 cases of suspicion of a criminal offense of public promotion of hatred,
violence or intolerance under Article 297 of the Penal Code. Examples included the following elements:
ethnicity (4), ethnic origin (3), religion (2), skin colour (1), race (1), political or other belief (1), violence (1),
intolerance, incitement (2), hatred (2), promotion (8).
In accordance with the ninth paragraph of Article 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 5 criminal charges
against unknown perpetrators were made to the competent district state prosecutor's offices, while in 2
cases criminal charges were brought against known perpetrators. Pursuant to the tenth paragraph of Article
148 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 4 reports against unknown perpetrators were submitted to the
competent district state prosecutor's offices, while reports were filed against known perpetrators in 2
diameters.

Table: Review of cases of discrimination in 2017 dealt with by the Law Enforcement
State authority

Law
enforcement

No. of cases of
discrimination dealt with

Number of cases in which discrimination
was found

13

There were 7 reports of charges sent to
district courts and 6 reports

In the same way as in the police, as with the inspectorates, due to various systems of recording and
recording cases of discrimination, the problem of structured review of data was shown in the form defined
by the PADA; in the context of personal grounds, areas and forms of discrimination. In the view of the
detailed monitoring of the cases of discrimination at the national level in accordance with the requirements
of the PADA, the need for a systematic harmonization of the manner of recording the cases of discrimination
considered is evident.

30

3.1.4 Cases of discrimination in 2017 dealt with by the Ombudsperson
In accordance with Article 21 of the PADA, which imposes on the Advocate the monitoring and assessment
of the situation in the field of protection against discrimination, the Advocate also asked the Ombudsperson
for information on the cases related to discrimination in 2017.
The Ombudsperson will present the cases of discrimination received in 2017 separately in his annual report
on pages 103-139, section 2.2 Discrimination and Intolerance.

3.2 PROMOTING EQUAL TREATMENT ON NATIONAL AND LOCAL
LEVELS
In accordance with Chapter 3 of the PADA, which deals with the promotion of equal treatment, the Advocate
is obliged to monitor the process of creating conditions for the equal treatment of all persons by state bodies,
local communities, self-governing national communities and holders of public authority in their field (entities
that Advocate is following). Chapter 3 of the PADA imposes on the Advocate of the Principle of Equality the
monitoring of the situation of discrimination in Slovenia and obliges the competent ministries and government
departments responsible for individual areas or groups of persons with a particular personal ground to take
measures to adopt measures on equal treatment prepared in cooperation with the social partners and
associations, institutions or private institutions active in the field of equal treatment, protection of human rights
and fundamental freedoms, protection against discrimination against vulnerable groups or legal or social
assistance to discriminated persons (NGOs).
On the basis of an analysis of the situation from the point of view of equal treatment, special measures may
be taken by state bodies, self-governing local communities, holders of public powers, employers, educational
institutions, economic operators and other subjects, depending on the nature of their work and the field of
operation. In accordance with Article 18 of the PADA, special measures pursue the legitimate aim of
eliminating the less favourable situation of persons with a particular personal ground, based on analyses of
the existence of a less favourable situation, and are necessary and appropriate means to eliminate such a
situation. Entities that take special measures regularly check their merits or justification for further
implementation.
Monitoring and promoting equal treatment is planned in five steps:
1. Inquiries on the status of plans, performances and effects of equal treatment in individual subjects that the
Advocate monitors;
2. Entities supported by the Advocate shall provide the latter with information on the situation and the
measures taken or implemented for equal treatment;
3. The Advocate performs the analysis and evaluation of the collected data;
4. The Advocate provides recommendations or proposals for the adoption of specific measures to the entities
it is monitoring and assessing;
5. The Advocate prepares for state bodies, local communities, self-governing national communities and
holders of public authority the appropriate educational trainings - awareness raising and presentation of
individual good practices from both Slovenia and other countries.

31

32

3.2.1 Ministries' reports on measures taken to promote equal treatment
3.2.1.1 Introduction
In Article 14, PADA defines state bodies, local communities, self-governing national communities and holders
of public authority as bearers of tasks for promoting equal treatment. They are obliged, within their respective
spheres of competence, to create conditions for the equal treatment of all persons, regardless of any personal
ground, by raising awareness and monitoring the situation in this field and by taking measures of a normative
and political nature. In addition, that Article stipulates that ministries and government departments
responsible for specific areas defined in the PADA or for groups of persons with a particular personal ground
shall prepare proposals for measures in their field of work.
In the context of promoting equal treatment of all persons, measures are envisaged which, within the sectoral
competences of ministries and government services, lay down measures and policies that address the
prevention of discrimination. In this case, ministries and government services are not meant only as
employers, but also as policy-makers who follow the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination in
specific areas with specific measures.

3.2.1.2 Overview of measures and activities to promote equal treatment by
ministries
In accordance with the PADA, the Advocate on 29 March 2017 and subsequently on 19 May 2017 called on
the ministries to provide information on what measures and activities of a normative and political nature were
aimed at creating the conditions for equal treatment of all persons in the year 2016 and what measures and
activities are planned in 2017. The responses of ministries are listed in the order that they were received.
Of the 14 ministries, 8 ministries responded, namely:
- Ministry of Finance,
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
- Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities,
- Ministry of Education, Science and Sport,
- Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning,
- Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food,
- Ministry of Defense,
- Ministry of Culture.

3.2.1.3 Analysis of measures and activities to promote equal treatment by
ministries
Of the 14 ministries that received the Advocate's request to provide information on the implemented and
planned measures with which the body creates the conditions for equal treatment of all persons, 8 of them
responded, namely: Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs
and Equal Opportunities, Ministry of Foreign Affairs the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning,
the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food, the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Culture.
The Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities and the Ministry of Culture represent
a model for active action in the field of protection against discrimination. For the years 2016 and 2017, the
Equal Opportunities Division listed activities, workshops and measures in particular in the area of gender
inequality (promotion of women in entrepreneurship, analysis of access to the labour market and employment
of women, promotional activities to promote active paternity...). Information leaflets and posters were
published, various ICT technologies were used (websites, radio, video ads). The Directorate for the labour
market and employment mainly works in the field of employment, organizing education and training. The
Ministry of Culture mentioned cultural public tenders and projects aimed at ethnic minorities in Slovenia and
socially weak citizens.

33

Some ministries listed activities based primarily on the aspect of the ministry as an employer and less from
the point of view of the ministry as the drafters of sectoral policies, which include measures to promote
equality and non-discrimination. As an example, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated the equal treatment of
natural persons regardless of gender, age, religious belief, etc., in accessing employment, applying for a job,
choosing, ensuring equal rights at the workplace, etc is ensured. The Ministry of Defense also proposed
some measures and activities that do not represent concrete measures: improvement of management style,
change in organizational culture, clear information delivery, open communication, measures and changes
that would help to improve the working atmosphere... Also, the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning
most of the time covers the observance of laws and regulations on employment and protection against
discrimination, and also lists some internal regulations adopted in 2016 from the point of view of promoting
equality (a rulebook concerning personal circumstances of disability, contracts concerning membership in
trade unions, rules on the prevention of discrimination and violence and public tender, which enables socially
weak individuals to benefit from certain services and counselling).
It is to be noted that many ministries are not aware of their role, duties and responsibilities in promoting
equality at the level of sectoral measures and policies.
Some ministries, such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food and the Ministry of Education,
Science and Sport (in the case of the Office for Youth), have listed measures and activities implemented by
other organizations, but financially supported by the ministry. At the first ministry, they are referring to the
Association of Women Farmers of Slovenia, who represent a non-governmental, voluntary organization. The
Office for Youth emphasizes the Youth Program and the Program for Youth. In both cases, apart from the
description of the activities of the aforementioned organizations, it is clearly emphasized that the ministries
provide these organizations with financial support only, but they themselves do not carry out certain activities,
take measures, etc.
The Ministry of Finance has specified a measure which enables the public official to enable the disabled
person to have the presence of an interpreter for the sign language if he expresses an interest in
interpretation, while at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, priority was given to the disabled worker in the parking
area of the ministry. At the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, the Ministry of Defense and the
Ministry of Finance, they stressed that they have established a new position of an advisor to help employees.
In accordance with the systematic tasks of monitoring and promoting equal treatment, the Advocate has so
far carried out the following stages:
 inquiries on the status of plans, performances and effects of equal treatment in individual subjects
that the Advocate monitors;
 entities supported by the Advocate shall provide the latter with information on the situation and the
measures taken or implemented for equal treatment;
 the Advocate performs the analysis and evaluation of the collected data.
In 2018, the Advocate is arranging the organization of specific trainings on the prevention of discrimination
and the promotion of equal treatment of all persons for the upcoming years.
Most ministries try to follow the provisions of the PADA and the Employment Relationship Act, which are
related to equal treatment. Specific measures have been adopted, in most cases at the level of rules, general
acts or recommended measures to promote equal treatment at the workplace. The answers received in most
cases show a lack of awareness on the importance of promotion of equal treatment within sectoral policies
and measures dictated only by the field of work of a particular ministry. It is also worrying that six ministries
did not respond at all to the Advocate's request. These ministries are: Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of
Justice, Ministry of Economic Development and Technology, Ministry of Infrastructure, Ministry of Public
Administration and Ministry of Health.
Given that this is the first ever information about the measures and activities of the ministries on promotion
of equal treatment, the answers received, and the lack of the latter point to the degree of ignorance of the
ministries about the importance of discrimination and the promotion of equality. The current situation shows
that, in the future, it will be necessary to increase awareness on the importance of promotion of equal
treatment both within the policy framework and in the field of work and employment within the organizations.
To this end, the Advocate will arrange the organization of trainings and workshops on the topic of nondiscrimination and the promotion of equal treatment of all persons for the ministries and other institutions.
The purpose of such education would be to raise awareness of the various options available to individual
34

ministries in order to contribute to the systematic reduction of discrimination and the promotion of equality in
the framework of measures of a normative and political nature in their field. At the same time, due to limited
financial resources, the Advocate does not currently have the human resources to carry out the necessary
education, preventive and awareness-raising projects.

3.2.2 Municipalities’ report on measures to promote equal treatment
3.2.2.1 Introduction
According to the PADA, the Advocate asked all municipalities to provide information on what measures and
activities were taken in 2016 in order to create the conditions for equal treatment of all persons, and what
measures and activities are planned for 2017. The letter he sent has also pointed out that it is not merely
about the measures that the municipalities implement as employers in relation to employees, but also about
the measures aimed at creating the conditions for equal treatment of all persons within the local operation of
the municipalities.
In accordance with Article 14 of the PADA, the Advocate forwarded the request to 11 city municipalities: Ptuj,
Slovenj Gradec, Velenje, Celje, Koper, Kranj, Nova Gorica, Ljubljana, Maribor, Murska Sobota and Novo
Mesto. He received 3 answers, from: Municipality of Velenje, Municipality of Ptuj and the Municipality of
Ljubljana.

3.2.2.2 Analysis of measures and activities by city municipalities
Of 11 municipalities to which the Advocate submitted a request for data transmission, only 3 responded.
As can be seen from the thorough answer of the Municipality of Ljubljana, their measures and activities for
the promotion of equal treatment cover a wide spectrum of all personal grounds and areas of possible
discrimination both in terms of normative and political measures.
The Municipality of Velenje has highlighted three main projects, which are mostly aimed at preventing
discrimination based on personal grounds of disability, age and wealth. It also implements measures to
prevent discrimination within the municipal administration.
The Municipality of Ptuj has conducted workshops on reconciling work and family and preventing violence.
In accordance with the systematic tasks of monitoring and promoting equal treatment, the Advocate has so
far carried out the following stages:
- inquiries on the status of plans, performances and effects of equal treatment in individual subjects
that the Advocate monitors;
- entities supported by the Advocate shall provide the latter with information on the situation and the
measures taken or implemented for equal treatment;
- the Advocate performs the analysis and evaluation of the collected data.
In 2018 the Advocate will arrange the organization of specific educational trainings on the topic of nondiscrimination and the promotion of equal treatment of all persons.
The lack of answers by individual urban municipalities is a worrying fact that hinders the awareness of the
importance of promoting equality and preventing discrimination at a local level. The answers of the three city
municipalities indicate that there are great differences between individual municipalities and a level of
awareness of the importance of equal treatment of all persons. By the number of specific measures, the
Municipality of Ljubljana stands out strongly, but on the basis of only two responses from other municipalities,
we cannot draw conclusions upon the whole state of promoting equal treatment at the level of local selfgovernment. Given the ineffectiveness of city municipalities, the outlines of the general ignorance of their
role in preventing discrimination and promoting equality at the local level are manifested.
Given that this is the first ever information disclosed on the measures and activities of municipalities to
promote equal treatment (in 2017, the Advocate turned to city municipalities only), the current situation shows
that in the future, there will be a need to strengthen awareness of the promotion of equal treatment both
within local policies as well as from the aspect of the field of work and employment within the municipal
35

administration. For this purpose, the Advocate is arranging the organization of educational trainings and
workshops on the topic of non-discrimination and the promotion of equal treatment of all persons, as well as
on the topic of possibilities for monitoring subjects with various measures of normative and political nature.
However, due to limited financial resources, the Advocate does not currently have the human resources to
carry out the necessary education and preventive and awareness-raising projects.

3.3 COOPERATION AND DIALOGUE WITH NON-GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS
3.3.1 Introduction
In accordance with Articles 14 and 15 of the PADA, the Advocate cooperates with the Government of the
Republic of Slovenia and other state authorities shall cooperate with social partners and associations,
institutions or private bodies (non-governmental organisations), which work in the field of equal treatment,
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, protection of vulnerable groups against discrimination,
and legal or social assistance for people subject to discrimination.
In this regard, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Slovenia are a very important element,
representing one of the forms of citizens’ participation in the management of the state and society and are
also an important provider of publicly-beneficial services in various fields. Some NGOs have been active in
the fields of equal treatment, protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms or social assistance for
discriminated persons for many years.

̶

In 2017, the Advocate began to establish a dialogue and held meetings with 15 non-governmental
organizations in the area of human rights and the promotion of equality:
Amnesty International Slovenije,
Društvo za nenasilno komunikacijo,
Društvo Ključ – Center za boj proti trgovini z ljudmi,
Društvo SOS telefon za ženske in otroke – žrtve nasilja,
Ekvilib inštitut,
Društvo za človekove pravice in človeku prijazne dejavnosti Humanitas,
Mirovni inštitut,
Društvo za osveščanje in varstvo – center antidiskriminacije (OVCA),
Slovenska filantropija, Združenje za promocijo prostovoljstva,
Slovenska fundacija za Unicef,
Pravno – informacijski center nevladnih organizacij – PIC,
Zavod PIP – Pravni in informacijski center Maribor,
Združenje proti spolnemu zlorabljanju,
Zveza Društev upokojencev Slovenije,
Zveza prijateljev mladine Slovenije.
̶

̶

̶

̶

̶

̶

̶

̶

̶

̶

̶

̶

̶

̶

Conversations with other NGOs according to personal grounds, areas and forms of discrimination will be
continued by the Advocate in the current year.

36

3.3.2

Analysis of the views exposed by non-governmental organizations during
the dialogue

General about discrimination
NGOs highlighted the personal grounds that they identified as the most relevant: gender (violence against
women, discrimination against motherhood, sexual violence, emphasizing the existence of several personal
grounds at the same time (intersectional discrimination): especially women, age and property), Roma issues,
discrimination based on national and ethnic backgrounds and religious belief that is on the rise. They rarely
listed discrimination upon other personal grounds. They also pointed out children being an important
vulnerable group. The areas of discrimination that have been exposed are work and employment, the real
estate market and social protection.
How do they see the role of the Advocate and his work
Most NGOs that met with the Advocate in 2017 pointed out that they see the role of the Advocate, especially
in raising people's awareness of what discrimination is, promoting issues, reducing prejudice in the public,
and informing people about what their options are if they are discriminated against. The Advocate is
supposed to carry out research in the field of discrimination (which they themselves consider to be
insufficient), take judicial cases and concern legal issues (including the creation of a case-law database),
and to ensure mutual monitoring of activity, on-line communication and providing support for NGOs in writing
shadow reports and at strategic litigation. Some see the Advocate as an intermediary in establishing
communication between state authorities and NGOs.
Major systemic problems in relation to discrimination
NGOs note that for every personal ground that is the cause of discrimination, at least one issue of a systemic
nature is unresolved. In addition, victims are often not informed or empowered to report discrimination. In
particular, they have highlighted financial malnutrition or even the abolition of funding, lack of clear or
incorrect legislation, and a lack of research and review of case-law.
Participation of NGOs with state bodies and other institutions
Most NGOs cooperate with various state institutions, in particular, with competent ministries, inspectorates,
police, courts, etc., in one way or another. Different NGOs have different experiences with individual
institutions. In some ministries there is a problem of establishing a contact and communication. As one of the
main needs where the Advocate could help, they stressed the establishment of contact with the state
institutions. The cooperation with the police and inspections is mostly evaluated quite positively. Most NGOs
also work with the Ombudsperson and they evaluate their cooperation very differently. Certain NGOs
cooperate to a large extent with Centres for Social Work and with some other institutions (the President of
the state, the President of the National Assembly, the Prosecutor's Office ...). They also noted that
cooperation often depends on the personal commitment of an individual who works in a particular institution.

37

3.4 BILATERAL COOPERATION
Bilateral co-operation is a part of international cooperation at a concrete level between the two countries.
These are specific arrangements and good practices that make national equality bodies more effective.
Bilateral co-operation allows the exchange of opinions and good practices first hand.
In the framework of international bilateral cooperation, as part of the discussions with the Embassy of the
Kingdom of the Netherlands, the idea of a concrete interaction between the Advocate and the comparable
Dutch institution emerged. The cooperation was realized in October 2017 with a visit of a delegation from the
Netherlands Institute of Human Rights, an exchange of experiences and opinions on the development of the
body (peer review) and the organization of a public discussion on discrimination in the workplace in terms of
gender and age in Ljubljana. Last year's cooperation ended in December 2017 with the visit of
representatives of the Advocate in Utrecht, who attended the education and presentation of the Dutch
equality body and visited one of their non-governmental organizations for combating discrimination - Art. 1
Midden Nederland.
Visit of the representatives of the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights in Slovenia and expert peer
review of the functioning of the Slovenian equality body / October 2017
In October, a Delegation from the Dutch equality body visited the Advocate in order to carry out a professional
peer review and to mutually exchange good practices. During the visit, the Advocate was hosting the
representatives of the Dutch equality body in its new premises and explained to them the challenges facing
the establishment of a body that was formally defined in 2016 through the PADA. The Dutch guests
contributed to the development of the organ with valuable experience and recommendations, and on 19
October they attended a public discussion on the topic of discrimination in the workplace in terms of age and
gender, organized by the Advocate in cooperation with the Dutch Embassy. The Commissioner for the
principle of equality, dr. Carina van Eck, also participated as a speaker at a public consultation (page 11,
chapter 1.2 Organization of an international event on raising awareness about equality).
Visit of representatives of the Advocate to the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights and a meeting
with the non-governmental organization Art. 1 Midden Nederland on prevention of discrimination /
December 2017
On 5 December 2017, representatives of the Advocate visited the Dutch equality body – the Netherlands
Institute for Human Rights in Utrecht. The program presented by the Institute's staff, which was established
in 1994, was practically oriented. The Dutch colleagues presented the work of their institute in various
aspects: the functioning of the reception office, assistance and support for victims of discrimination, the
hearing process of both parties involved, and presenting the content interaction in various fields: law, public
relations and foreign policy, or management of policies; individual cases, influence in court proceedings ...
Representatives of the Advocate were introduced to the way the Dutch-related institution works, what powers
it has, what can it do and what the procedures are in the case of reporting discrimination or a violation of
human rights. They also attended the hearing in the case of the reported discrimination and visited the
reception office of the Institute which takes care of received applications, communication with customers,
and assistance and information. They were also presented with the field of public relations and its relevance
to the field of awareness raising and preventive work. The Dutch Institute places great emphasis on
prevention, education and awareness-raising, on soft approaches and improvement of systemic regulation,
and on warnings of systemic discrimination within the traditional and historical perception of individual
aspects of human life.

38

4 PERCEPTION OF DISCRIMINATION IN SLOVENIA – PUBLIC
OPINION POLL
4.1 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC OPINION POLL RESULTS –
DISCRIMINATION IN SLOVENIA

4.1.1 About the public opinion poll
At the end of 2017, the Advocate conducted a survey on discrimination in Slovenia, aimed at gaining insight
into public opinion about discrimination among the general population. It was carried out by the Institute for
Market Research and Media called Mediana, whose sample frame was the population of the Republic of
Slovenia aged between 15 to 75 years. The survey was carried out on a sample (N = 1011), which is
representative for Slovenia by gender, age, region and level of education. The data collection took place in
the second half of October and early November 2017.
The survey involved 51 percent of men and 49 percent of women, divided into six age categories, ranging
from 15 to 75 years. Respondents had a different level of education, more than half (53 percent) completed
vocational or secondary education. One fifth (20 per cent) belonged to the category that completed the most
elementary school or less, and just under a third (26 per cent) completed a higher level of education.
About half of the respondents (54 percent) were from rural or village environments, whilst the other half (46
percent) came from an urban environment. Respondents also came from various Slovenian regions, namely:
Pomurska, Podravska, Koroška, Savinjska, Zasavska, Spodnjeposavska, South-east Slovenia,
Osrednjeslovenska, Gorenjska, Goriška and Notranjsko-kraška and Obalno-kraška.
A good two-thirds (66 percent) of respondents were not religious, and by nationality, they were mostly
Slovenians. Only 6 percent of respondents belong to other nationalities such as: Serbs, Croats, Bosnians,
Hungarians, Macedonians and others.
The respondents differed in terms of employment status, with only half of them employed (45 percent), almost
a third are pensioners (26 percent), while the rest are still in school, unemployed or self-employed. Their
income mostly stretches from 400 euros to more than 1,200 euros a month, while some do not have their
own income or did not want to answer the question about revenues (10 percent).

39

4.1.2

A summary of the key findings of the public opinion poll

The opinion poll shows that the respondents most often considered discrimination as unequal treatment due
to skin colour or race (19 percent), unequal treatment in general (16 percent), and unequal treatment due
to religion or belief (15 percent). In this regard, an individual response could be classified into several
categories.
According to the first paragraph of Article 4 of the PADA, discrimination is defined as “any undue actual or
legal unequal treatment, differentiation, exclusion, limitation or failure to act due to personal grounds, the
result or consequence of which is hindrance, reduction or nullification of equal recognition, enjoyment or
exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms, other rights, legal interests and benefits.". The
respondents were able to give up to three answers, and according to the sum of the percentages of the
first, second and third statements, personal grounds, which were the most frequent reason for discrimination
are: ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or belief and social status. About one quarter of the
respondents believe that in Slovenia the most frequent targets of discrimination are Roma, followed by
homosexuals, refugees and members of the lower social strata.
The respondents were able to choose not more than three responses from the areas of discrimination, and
according to the percentages of the first, second and third indication, it is evident that discrimination is the
most widespread in the area of labour and employment, justice, police procedures, followed by social
and health care.
More than a third of respondents (36 percent) believe that in recent years the situation of inequality and
discrimination in the country has deteriorated. Among those who believe that they have been the target
of discrimination in the last 12 months, this proportion is higher and amounts to 45 percent. In addition, a fifth
of respondents (22 percent) believe that discrimination is one of the more widespread problems in the
country. A good third of respondents (38 percent) believe that discrimination is at the same level as other
problems in the country.
The fact is that nearly 40 percent of the population is interested in information on inequality and discrimination
in Slovenia. In the meantime, almost half of the population (47 percent) wants to receive information
on the topic of discrimination by the Advocate. Among those who believe that they have been
discriminated against in the last 12 months, almost 60 percent would like to obtain information on
discrimination from the Advocate.
There are worrying results that show that about two thirds of respondents are not aware of a single legal
act aimed at preventing and eliminating discrimination, and that almost two thirds of respondents do not
know even one body promoting equality and protecting against discrimination.
Real awareness of the existence of the new body for protection against discrimination – the Advocate
of the Principle of Equality – is almost negligible; to the question "Do you know which autonomous state
bodies in Slovenia are competent to fight inequality and ensure protection against discrimination?" only a
very low percentage of respondents stated the Advocate of the Principle of Equality. The most frequently
mentioned body was the Ombudsperson, which was indicated by 28 percent of those surveyed.
Respondents' answers to the question of how to combat inequality and prevent discrimination paint a more
worrying picture, as more than a third (36 percent) of them think that the fight against inequality is not
appropriately (or not at all) taken care of. Those who consider that inequality and discrimination is not
adequately taken care of suggested the following improvements to the existing situation: more emphasis
should be placed on raising people's awareness, strengthening relations between people, improving the legal
and regulatory framework, and improve education and training.
About one fifth of the population would definitely report discrimination if they were to witness it or find
out about it. If the respondents in the survey or their immediate target were discriminated, they would first
have contacted their family members for support, followed by the Ombudsperson, friends and
colleagues and they would less turn to personal attorneys, the police and the inspectorate.

40

4.1.3 Summary of key responses with the alleged personal experience of
discrimination
Approximately one fifth of respondents (17 percent) believes that they have been the target of
discrimination in the last 12 months; 11 percent have experienced discrimination in the last 12 months
multiple times, and 6 percent of discriminated against have define discrimination as a one-time event. Among
them, almost half were discriminated against in the workplace, followed by health care, public
administration and education. The most frequent personal grounds of discrimination were age, social
status, health status and education.
It is a worrying fact that 75 percent of those who consider themselves discriminated against in the last 12
months did not use any procedures to protect their rights. A good half of those who did not use any
procedures, as a reason for their decision, indicated a mistrust that anything could change.
Respondents who thought that they were discriminated against in the last 12 months were asked to describe
the experience they had which they considered to be discriminative. The analysis of their answers showed
that as many as 70 percent of cases can correspond to the definition of discrimination, as defined by
the PADA; other cases are mainly about other inappropriate behaviour or guilt.

41

4.2 A DETAILED OVERVIEW OF THE RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC
OPINION POLL
4.2.1 A general overview of the perception of discrimination

4.2.1.1 Interpretation of the concept of discrimination
Question: What do you personally understand comes under the term ‘discrimination’? (expressed as a
percentage of 100 percent for each category)

The answers to the first question provide an insight into the understanding of the concept of discrimination
among the respondents. Respondents are most likely to see discrimination as unequal treatment due to skin
colour and race (19 percent), unequal treatment in general (16 percent), and unequal treatment due to
religious beliefs (15 percent). More than 10 percent described discrimination as isolation, ignoring (13
percent); unequal treatment on grounds of nationality (12 percent); resentment or rejection of the person (11
percent), and humiliation or underestimation (11 percent). However, every tenth respondent did not know
how to describe discrimination.
* The graph shows the responses of the respondents who provided open and post-coded answers, which
means that an individual answer could be classified into several categories.

42

4.2.1.2 Perpetrators of discrimination
Question: Who in Slovenia, in your opinion, most often discriminates others? (expressed as a percentage of
100 percent for each category)

On the question of who discriminates the most in Slovenia, respondents were able to give more answers,
and according to the percentages of the first, second and third statements it is evident that discrimination is
most often performed by persons, individuals (47 percent), private employers (38 percent) and politicians (30
percent). According to respondents, the rarest perpetrators are non-governmental organizations (6 percent),
service providers (8 percent) and organizations of regional and local self-government (8 percent).
According to the first paragraph of Article 4 of the PADA, discrimination is defined as “According to the first
paragraph of Article 4 of the PADA, discrimination is defined as any undue actual or legal unequal treatment,
differentiation, exclusion, limitation or failure to act due to personal grounds, the result or consequence of
which is hindrance, reduction or nullification of equal recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and
fundamental freedoms, other rights, legal interests and benefits.” The first paragraph of Article 5 of the PADA
stipulates that equal treatment must be ensured, which means “the absence of direct and indirect
discrimination due to any personal circumstance of a person, including the absence of any other treatment
which in compliance with this Act denotes discrimination.” The purpose and content of the PADA written in
Article 1 assures “protection of all persons against discrimination irrespective of their gender, nationality,
racial or ethnic origin, language, religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender
expression, social status, property status, education, or any other personal circumstance (hereinafter:
personal circumstance) in various fields of social life, when enforcing human rights and fundamental
freedoms, exercising rights and obligations and in other legal relationships in political, economic, social,
cultural, civil or other fields.” All forms of discrimination, from direct to indirect, harassment, sexual
harassment, instructions for discrimination, appeals towards the latter and victimization, are also prohibited.
* When interpreting the answers, the sum of the percentages of the first, second and third choice of
respondents is given. The question was open. There were several possible responses that were ranked.

43

4.2.1.3 The prevalence of discrimination in Slovenia
Question: To what extent, in your opinion, is the problem of discrimination widely spread in Slovenia?
(expressed as a percentage)

6 percent of respondents think that discrimination is the most pressing problem in the country. A good fifth
(22 percent) believe that discrimination is one of the more widespread problems in the country. A good third
of respondents (38 percent) believe that discrimination is a problem of same level as other problems in the
country. Less than 5 percent of respondents answered that discrimination in Slovenia does not pose any
problems at all.

44

4.2.1.4 Victims of discrimination, according to the respondents

Question: Who, in your opinion, is most often a target of discrimination in Slovenia? (expressed as a
percentage of 100 percent for each category, multiple responses possible)

The respondents were able to give multiple answers at the same time and they believe that in Slovenia the
most frequent targets of discrimination are the Roma (24 percent), homosexuals (14 percent), refugees (14
percent), representatives of lower social strata (11 percent), women (8 percent), foreigners (7 percent),
representatives of middle class (7 percent) and immigrants (6 percent).
* The graph shows the answers of the respondents to a question of the combined type, to which several
answers could have been given.

45

4.2.1.5 Areas of discrimination according to the respondents

Question: In which of the following areas, in your opinion, discrimination in Slovenia is the most widespread?
(expressed as a percentage of 100 percent for each category)

On the question about the area of the most widespread discrimination in Slovenia, the respondents were
able to provide up to three answers. The percentages of the first, second and third indications indicate that
discrimination is the most widespread in the fields of work and employment (61 percent), the judiciary (34
percent) and police procedures (29 percent). On the other hand, it is believed that discrimination in Slovenia
is the least widespread in the purchase of real estate (9 percent), in trade and other service activities (10
percent), in renting property (16 percent), and in education (16 percent).
* When interpreting the answers, the sum of the percentages of the first, second and third choice of
respondents is given. The question was closed. Respondents could give up to three answers that were
ranked.

46

4.2.1.6 Reasons for discrimination - personal grounds according to the
respondents

Question: What characteristics are most frequently a reason for discrimination in Slovenia in your opinion?
(expressed as a percentage of 100 percent for each category)

When asked which personal grounds are most often the cause of discrimination, the respondents were able
to provide up to three answers. According to the percentages of the first, second and third statements,
personal grounds, which are the most frequent reason for discrimination are: ethnicity (40 percent), sexual
orientation (39 percent), religion (29 percent) and social position (26 percent). Less than 5 percent of the
respondents stated the marriage status (2 percent), local affiliation (4 percent), and the citizenship of the
other European Union member states (4 percent).
* When interpreting the answers, the sum of the percentages of the first, second and third choice of
respondents is given. The question was of a mixed type. The respondents could give up to three answers
that were ranked.

47

4.2.1.7 Reporting discrimination
Question: How likely is it for you to report discrimination to other people if you were to witness the latter or
find out about it? (expressed as a percentage)

In the case of individuals being witnesses of discrimination or finding out about it, 42 percent of respondents
would have reported this behaviour in all likelihood, and 20 percent would definitely report discrimination. 22
percent of respondents were unlikely to report discrimination, and only 6 percent would certainly not report
discrimination.

48

4.2.1.8 To whom would you turn to help?
Question: To whom would you first turn to for help if you personally or any of your loved ones were
discriminated against by a person or organization? (expressed as a percentage of 100 percent for each
category)

In answering the question of who to turn to for assistance in the event of discrimination, the respondents
could give up to three answers. According to the sum of the percentages of the first, second and third
allegations, it is evident that in the case of discrimination, they would first contact the family members (45
percent), the ombudsperson (39 percent) and friends or colleagues (38 percent). Almost a quarter would turn
to personal attorneys (24 per cent), to the police (22 per cent) or to the inspectorate (21 per cent).
* When interpreting the answers, the sum of the percentages of the first, second and third choice of
respondents is given. The question was of a mixed type. The respondents could give up to three answers
that were ranked.

49

4.2.1.9 What is the situation with regard to the prevention of discrimination in
recent years?
Question: Do you think that the situation regarding discrimination and inequality in Slovenia has improved in
recent years, remained the same, or worsened? (expressed as a percentage)

More than 36 percent of respondents believe that the situation of discrimination and inequality in Slovenia
has deteriorated in recent years, and 41 percent believe that it has remained the same. Only 16 percent of
respondents believe that the situation on the field of preventing discrimination has improved in recent
years.

50

4.2.1.10

How is the prevention of discrimination organized in the country?

Question: Do you think that in Slovenia proper care is taken to combat inequality and prevent discrimination?
(expressed as a percentage)

Respondents' answers to the question of how to tackle inequality and prevent discrimination paint a worrying
picture, as 15 percent believe that discrimination is not adequately taken care of at all and 21 percent say
that it is generally not adequately taken care of. Only 2 percent of the respondents think that the prevention
of discrimination and the fight against inequality are taken care of, and 10 percent that discrimination is being
adequately taken care of.

51

4.2.1.11

How to improve the situation in the field of discrimination prevention

Question: What do you think should be improved? (expressed as a percentage of 100 percent for each
category)

Those who consider that the inequality and discrimination ("not adequately taken care of at all", "not
adequately taken care of", "something in the middle") are not adequately taken care of, are proposing the
following: more emphasis should be given to raise people's awareness (17 percent), strengthen relations
between people (8 percent), improve legal arrangements (8 percent) and improve education and training (7
percent).
* The graph shows the answers of the respondents to an open type question. The answers given were
encoded and individual responses can be classified into several categories.

52

4.2.1.12

Affiliation to vulnerable groups

Question: Do you personally, or who of your closest people (partners, relatives, friends) belong to one of
the following social groups? (expressed as a percentage of 100 percent by category)

Of all those involved in the survey, the majority of respondents has in their inner circle those with a serious
illness (26 percent), a disabled person (25 percent), a member of a religious minority (15 percent), a
homosexual person (12 or more) percent), a member of a national minority (8 percent) and a person of
another skin colour (5 percent).

53

4.2.2

Personal experience of discrimination

Question: Have you personally been a target of discrimination in the last 12 months? (expressed as a
percentage)

In order to present an assessment of the situation of discrimination in Slovenia, the respondents answered
the question of whether they were the target of discrimination in the last 12 months. Almost a fifth of
respondents (17 percent) believe that they have experienced discrimination in the last 12 months. Of this, 11
percent experienced discrimination in the last 12 months multiple times, and 6 percent identified
discrimination as a one-time event. 78 percent of respondents said that they were not victims of discrimination
over the past 12 months.

54

4.2.2.1 Areas of discrimination
Question: In what area have you been discriminated against? (expressed as a percentage of 100 percent for
each category)

Of the 17 percent of respondents who responded that they were discriminated in the last 12 months, almost
half answered that they were discriminated against in the field of work and employment (48 percent), and
almost one fifth said that they experienced discrimination in the field of health care (18 percent) and in
procedures in public administration (13 percent).
* The graph shows the answers of the respondents to the question of the combined type, to which several
answers could be given.

55

4.2.2.2 Personal grounds of discrimination
Question: Because of what personal ground or characteristics have you been discriminated against?
(expressed as a percentage of 100 percent for each category)

17 percent of respondents who consider that they have been discriminated against in the past 12 months
have referred to age (19 percent), their social status (18 percent), their health status (18 percent), their level
of education (17 percent), assets (13 percent) and disability (11 percent).
* The graph shows the answers of the respondents to the question of the combined type, to which several
answers could be given.

56

4.2.2.3 To what extent have they turned to help due to discrimination
Three quarters of those who believe that they have been discriminated against in the last 12 months (17
percent) did not use any procedures to protect their rights, as they feel that nothing would change, they do
not know who to turn to or they believe that this would only make things worse. Only a quarter of those who
believe that they have been discriminated against in the past 12 months turned to help.
The respondents who indicated that certain procedures have already been used have, among other things,
provided the following answers:
- "Mobbing application, talk with the director, help of the labour union."
- "Report to the police."
- "Becoming a member of a labour union."
- "Labour-Social Court."
- "I asked the lawyer about it."
- "Inspectorate for Labour."
- "Inquiries about their rights, acquaintance with the law on education, mediation at relevant ministries."
- "Free legal aid and the Ombudsperson."
- "I filed a request for the correction of irregularities."

4.2.2.4 Reasons why they did not turn to help
Question: Why did not you use any procedures? (expressed as a percentage of 100 percent for each
category)

Among those who were the target of discrimination in the last 12 months and who did not use any procedure
for protecting their rights as a reason for this, respondents in the largest number state the answer that nothing
would change (53 percent), that they did not know, to whom to turn (21 percent) and a fear of things getting
worse (19 percent). The frequent choice of the answer "I did not know who to turn to" indicates a lack of
awareness among respondents, which also includes ignorance of bodies and legal acts aimed at preventing
and eliminating discrimination. To a large extent (19 percent), the fear of the respondents is expressed in
order to make the situation in which they were even worse. This indicates the fear of victimization, which
according to Article 11 of the PADA is defined as "exposing a person subject to discrimination, or a person
helping the aforementioned person, to unfavourable consequences due to actions which they take to prevent
or eliminate discrimination".
57

* The graph shows the answers of the respondents to the question of the combined type, to which several
answers could be given.

4.2.3 Other views of respondents on discrimination
In the following two sets of questions, respondents expressed their agreement or disagreement with specific
assertions. An analysis of the answers to the general views on discrimination showed a relatively high degree
of tolerance among the participants in the survey.

Question: To what extent do you agree with the following points? (expressed as a percentage)

Respondents (about 70 percent) would not oppose the marriage of their child with a person of another
nationality, skin colour or religion, and slightly less (almost 50 percent) would be supportive of a marriage to
a person of the same sex.
The majority would even rent a house to a person of another nationality or race without major reservations,
while only a little over a third would even rent their apartment to refugees.
44 percent of the respondents would employ Roma people in their own company, while 48 percent of
respondents believe that most of the Roma live with social assistance and do not want to work.
Respondents do, in general, not have an excessively positive attitude towards refugees, which is evident
from the answer that almost 40 percent do not support the employment of refugees in Slovenia.
Half of the respondents agreed that there are people who, due to their political views, should be banned from
appearing in the media (50 percent).

58

Question: To what extent do you agree with the following points? (expressed as a percentage)

The least respondents try to avoid contact with people who are less educated (5 percent), they do not want
to have people with serious disabilities for a colleague (9 percent) and think that with older people who are
not married, something is wrong (10 percent).
11 percent of respondents would feel uneasy if they found out that one of their colleagues was homosexual
and 75 percent of respondents would have no problem with this.
Respondents demonstrated a great deal of solidarity and disagreement with discrimination in the workplace
due to the candidate's health, as almost two thirds (61 percent) would not be supportive towards an employer
who would not want to employ a person with HIV. However, 17 percent of respondents would be
uncomfortable working with a person with a mental disorder.
More than two thirds of the respondents stated that they disagree with the claim that women and men are
not the same in nature and therefore cannot have an equivalent social role, while 6 percent agree.
A good third of respondents (41 percent) do not perceive people of older generations as less capable and
does not see a problem with the elderly people that have never been married (about 80 percent).
Most respondents (80 percent) do not even try to avoid contact with people who are less educated than they
are.

59

4.2.4 Knowledge about legislation and institutions in the field of nondiscrimination
Question: Which legal acts do you think are intended to prevent and eliminate discrimination in Slovenia?
(expressed as a percentage of 100 percent for each category)

The results of the opinion poll shows that about two thirds (67 percent) of respondents do not know a single
legal act that would aim at preventing and eliminating discrimination and fewer than a fifth would state the
Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia as a legal act.
* The graph shows the answers of the respondents to an open type question, on which several answers
could be given.

60

Question: Do you know which autonomous state authorities in Slovenia are responsible for combating
inequality and protecting against discrimination? Which one? (expressed as a percentage of 100 percent for
each category)

Just under two thirds of respondents (63 percent) do not know a single authority to fight inequality and protect
against discrimination. Among the respondents only a little over a third (37 percent) spontaneously reported
at least one anti-discrimination body. The highest number of respondents who answered that they know the
independent body listed the Ombudsperson (76 percent), the police (16 percent) and the courts (15 percent)
as the competent state authorities for combating inequality and protecting individuals against discrimination.
Only 1 percent of respondents indicated the Advocate of the Principle of Equality.
* The graph shows the answers of the respondents to an open type question, on which several answers
could be given.

61

Question: Do you know who (which organizations, organs) can you contact in Slovenia if you were the target
of discrimination? (expressed as a percentage of 100 percent)

With the help of a supported recourse, the majority of respondents among the organizations and bodies that
individuals can turn to in case of discrimination, identified the Ombudsperson (77 percent), various
inspectorates (41 percent), the Advocates of the Principle of Equality (36 percent) and the Constitutional
Court (34 percent).
* The graph shows the answers of the respondents to the question of the combined type, to which several
answers could be given.

62

4.2.5

Knowledge about the role of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality

Question: What kind of functions do you think that the Advocate of the Principle of Equality is performing?
(expressed as a percentage of 100 percent for each category)

More than half of the population (54 percent) does not know which functions the Advocate performs.
Only 15 percent of respondents think that the Advocate performs the function of advocating for equality (for
example, between races, religions ...), helps the discriminated ones (7 percent) and reacts to violations (6
percent).
* The graph shows the answers of the respondents to the question of the combined type, to which several
answers could be given.

Question: To what extent are you interested in information related to inequality and discrimination in
Slovenia?
The survey also found that almost 40 percent of respondents were interested in information on inequality
and discrimination in Slovenia.

Question: Would you like more information on the subject of discrimination by the Advocate of the Principle
of Equality?
Almost half of the respondents (47 percent) want more information on the topic of discrimination by the
Advocate.

63

5 DICTIONARY OF TERMS
Discrimination shall be any undue actual or legal unequal treatment, differentiation, exclusion, limitation
or failure to act due to personal circumstances, the result or consequence of which is hindrance, reduction
or nullification of equal recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms, other
rights, legal interests and benefits.
Equal treatment shall be the absence of direct and indirect discrimination due to any personal circumstance
of a person, including the absence of any other treatment which in compliance with this Act denotes
discrimination. It should also be guaranteed to a person who is actually or legally connected to a person who
is in certain personal circumstances; and a person who is discriminated against because of incorrect
conclusions about the existence of certain personal circumstances.
In Slovenia the protection of all persons against discrimination is ensured, irrespective of their gender,
nationality, racial or ethnic origin, language, religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender
identity or gender expression, social status, property status, education, or any other personal circumstance
(hereinafter: personal circumstance) in various fields of social life, when enforcing human rights and
fundamental freedoms, exercising rights and obligations and in other legal relationships in political, economic,
social, cultural, civil or other fields.
Areas of discrimination –ensuring protection against discrimination or equal treatment of all persons in all
fields of decision making, legal transactions and other operations or conduct, particularly in regard to:
 conditions for obtaining employment, self-employment and profession, including selection criteria and
employment conditions, notwithstanding the type of activity or the level of occupational hierarchy,
including promotion;
 accessing all forms and all levels of career orientation and consulting, vocational and professional
education and training, further vocational training and retraining, including internship;
 employment and working conditions, including termination of employment contracts and wages;
 membership and inclusion in workers’ or employers’ organisations or any organisation whose
members perform a certain vocation, including benefits provided by such organisations;
 social protection, including social security and health care;
 social benefits;
 education and schooling;
 accessing goods and services available to the public, including housing facilities and the supply of
housing facilities.
Direct discrimination occurs if a person or group of people are, were or could be treated less favourably
in the same or similar circumstances due to certain personal circumstances than another person or a group
of people is, was or would be treated.
Indirect discrimination occurs when a person or a group of people in certain personal circumstances is,
was or could be in a less favourable position than other people due to an apparently neutral provision,
criterion or practice, unless this provision, criterion or practice is objectively based on a legitimate objective
and the means of attaining this objective are appropriate and necessary.
Harassment is unwanted conduct related to any personal circumstance, which has the effect or purpose
of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for a person and which
violates the dignity of that person.
Sexual harassment is any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct or behaviour of a
sexual nature that occurs with the effect or purpose of violating the dignity of a person, in particular when
creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
Instructions on discrimination are any instructions the result of which is, was or could be discrimination
in the sense of this Act, which also includes an instruction not to prevent or eliminate discrimination.
Inciting discrimination is any incitement of other persons to carry out actions the result of which is, was
64

or could be discrimination as per the provisions of this Act. Prohibited severe conduct particularly includes
delivering or disseminating racist, religious, national and sexually discriminatory appeals, inducing, abetting
or inciting hatred and discrimination, and broader public haranguing which promotes discrimination.
Victimisation is exposing a person subject to discrimination, or a person helping the aforementioned
person, to unfavourable consequences due to actions which they take to prevent or eliminate discrimination.
Multiple discrimination is occurring when a person is discriminated against simultaneously due to several
personal circumstances;
Mass discrimination is occurring when several people are discriminated against simultaneously by
disputable conduct, particularly if motivated by hatred or contempt for people with certain personal
circumstances;
Persistent or repeated discrimination is also a severe form of discrimination.
Discrimination which has or could have consequences for the person subject to discrimination that
are difficult to remedy regarding damage caused to the person’s legal position, rights or obligations,
particularly if directed at children or other weak persons.
Special measures are temporary measures whose objective is to ensure the realisation of the right to equal
treatment, equal opportunity or actual equality and participation in the fields of social lives of people who
are in a less favourable position due to certain personal circumstances. Special measures shall be adopted
in order to prevent or eliminate consequences of such a position or provide a substitute for a less favourable
position. Special measures shall particularly include: incentive measures providing special benefits or
introducing special incentives for persons in less favourable positions in a certain field or environment (1);
positive action which gives advantage to people in certain personal circumstances when they meet the
prescribed criteria and conditions to an equal extent, and which may be applied particularly in the case of
evident disproportion regarding the possibilities of accessing the enforcement of rights, or accessing goods,
services or benefits (2).

The above explanations are taken from the Protection Against Discrimination Act.

65