Analitika - Policy Brief -NGO 24april2013 (ENG)

8/11/2019 Analitika - Policy Brief -NGO 24april2013 (ENG)

1/8

PolicyBrief 5

UNUSED POTENTIAL: THE ROLE AND IMPORTANCE

OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS IN

PROTECTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN BOSNIA

AND HERZEGOVINA*

January 2013.

By: Boris Topi

1. INTRODUCTION

In the internatonal and comparatve field, oneof the most important actvites of non-gov-ernmental organizatons (NGOs) that standsout in the area of combatng discriminaton istheir role in proceedings for protecton againstdiscriminaton.1Special significance to NGOs inthis field in the European Union countries wasaccorded by Directves in the discriminatonfield2, which require, for the purpose of ensu-

ring efficient protecton against discriminaton,that the states in their judicial systems allownon-governmental organizatons to act on be-half of victms of discriminaton or in supportof these individuals in proceedings for protec-

ton against discriminaton. The Law on theProhibiton of Discriminaton BiH (LPDBiH)3accords non-governmental organisatons twosignificant procedural roles, clearly taking intoaccount the provisions of the said Directves.In line with these procedural roles, NGOs aregiven an opportunity to provide support tovictms in proceedings for protecton againstdiscriminaton by using the well-known mecha-nism of intervener or, for the purpose of ab-stract protecton of victms of discriminaton, to

act independently through collectve lawsuits.The LPDBiH affords a statutory right to asso-ciatons, bodies, insttutons or other organi-zatons that have a justfied interest in fil-ing collectve suits.4 Collectve lawsuit against

* This Policy Brief is based on the Report Unused Potental: The Role and Importance of Non-governmental Organisatons inProtecton against Discriminaton in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by Boris Topic, published in 2012 by Analitka Center for SocialResearch. The Report is available in PDF version, on: hp://www.analitka.ba/files/B.Topic_Unused%20Potental%2011feb2013.pdf. Text translated by Antonela Glavini. The preparaton of the Report and the Policy Brief was supported by the Open SocietyFund Bosnia & Herzegovina.1 Ana Horvat, Novi standardi hrvatskoga i europskoga antdiskriminacijskog zakonodavstva [New Standards in Croatan andEuropean Ant-discriminaton Legislaton],Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu [Compendium of the Law School of Zagreb], No.58, issue 6 (Zagreb: Faculty of Law of the University of Zagreb, 2008), p. 1487.2 Racial Equality Directve Council Directve 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementng the principle of equal treatment between

persons irrespectve of racial or ethnic origin, Official Journal of the European Union, L 180/2000, Artcle 7; and Employment EqualityFramework Directve Council Directve 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment inemployment and occupaton, Official Journal of the European Union, L 303/2000, Artcle 9.3 Zakon o zabrani diskriminacije Bosne i Hercegovine [The Law on the Prohibiton of Discriminaton BiH], Official Gazee ofBosnia and Herzegovina, 59/09.4 Ibid, Artcle 17.

The Law on the Prohibiton of Discriminaton BiH, inter alia, allows non-governmental

organisatons (NGOs) in BiH to provide support to victms of discriminaton bypartcipatng in judicial proceedings on behalf of plaintff and, for the purpose ofabstract protecton of victms of discriminaton, by filing a collectve lawsuit. Althoughthe antdiscriminaton law has already been in force for three years, the number ofproceedings instgated under this Law is very low, and the partcipaton of NGOs inits implementaton is practcally negligible. The obstacles preventng NGOs in engagingmore actvely in ant-discriminaton proceedings are partly the result of the legalprovisions themselves, but are primarily the consequence of certain practcal problems,such as: the lack of stmulatng environment for the partcipaton of NGOs in judicialproceedings, the lack of financial and human resources and the technical problem ofthe lack of records on instgated proceedings. K

EYFINDINGS

ANALITIKACenter for Social Research


2/8

UNUSED POTENTIAL2

alleged discriminator is filed by an organisatonwhich is not the victm of discriminaton itselfprovided it makes it plausible that the plain-

tffs conduct violated the right of a number ofpersons predominantly belonging to the groupwhose protecton is sought by the lawsuit.5Introducton of the mechanism of collectvelawsuit for protecton against discriminatonis a novelty in the legal system of Bosnia andHerzegovina, which may serve as an excellenttool in the hands of non-governmental humanrights organizatons in combatng insttutonalor structural discriminaton in a variety of fields.As an important argument in favour of this as-serton, it can be pointed out that the collec-

tve lawsuit as an abstract form of protectondoes not depend on the existence of a specificvictm, allowing the organisaton that files thelawsuit to focus on arguments aacking thediscriminatory consequences that result eitherfrom the law itself, from its implementaton,or simply from the practce and the conduct.These characteristcs of collectve lawsuits makeit a partcularly suitable means for conductng

the so-called strategic litgaton a litgatonwhose goal is to, through judicial acton, lead tosocial changes, contribute to the interpretaton

of laws or simply to raise the public awarenessregarding different forms of discriminaton.With the aim of strengthening the proceduralpositon of the plaintff, the LPDBiH affords theright to non-governmental organisatons6to in-tervene in the proceedings for the plaintff. Thisright is given to the organisatons whose scopeof actvites includes protecton from discrimi-naton, thus, in this case, they appear as a kindof public interest interveners.7 In order tojoin the instgated litgaton, non-governmentalorganisaton must obtain the plaintffs con-

sent and they must prove that their actvitesprovide the protecton from discriminaton ofpersons whose rights are being decided uponin the proceedings. Non-governmental organi-saton proves that it meets this second require-ment by submi ng excerpts from their con-sttuent or organisatonal documents. Throughtheir partcipaton in the role of plaintffs inter-vener, NGOs may take procedural measures for

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The legal mechanism of collectve lawsuit should be improved by eliminatng the need to provethe existence of a justfied interest for filing a lawsuit, and the likelihood that the actons of theplaintffviolated the rights of a number of people be a subject of the evidentary procedure and

not, as the current provision sets forth, a subject of assessment of admissibility of the lawsuit.2. Plaintffs in the ant-discriminaton proceedings should be exempt from paying the costs of theproceedings in advance.

3. Optons for the partcipaton of non-governmental insttutons and other relevant actors inant-discriminaton proceedings should be expanded by introducing the mechanism of friend ofthe court - amicus curiae.

4. Non-governmental organizatons as such, (and not just individuals within them) should begiven a procedural opportunity to appear as representatves of victms of discriminaton injudicial proceedings, but also to appear on their behalf even in individual cases, subject to theconsent of the victm of discriminaton.

5. The governmental sector in BiH should ensure minimum pre-requisites and provide basicelements of a stmulatng environment for a more actve involvement of NGOs in ant-

discriminaton judicial proceedings.6. Relevant insttutons in BiH should establish easily accessible records on judicial proceedingsinstgated under the LPDBiH.

7. Non-governmental organisatons should intensify their actvites on strengthening internalcapacites for the partcipaton in judicial proceedings for protecton against discriminaton, aswell as on establishing substantve partnerships with other non-governmental organisatons andwith the Insttuton of Human Rights Ombudsman of BiH, in order to properly and efficiently usethe procedural roles afforded to them by the LPDBiH.

5 Ibid.6 The LPDBiH uses the following wording: a body, organizaton, insttuton, associaton or other person whose scope of act-vites includes protecton from discriminaton of the person or group of persons whose rights are being decided upon in the

proceedings.7 See Alan Uzelac, Postupak pred sudom [The Proceedings before Court], in Vodiuz Zakon o suzbijanju diskriminacije [GuideAccompanying the Law on the Prohibiton of Discriminaton], ed. Tena imonoviEinwalter (Zagreb: Office for Human Rights of theGovernment of the Republic of Croata, 2009), p. 100; and Goran Nezirovi, Postupak za zattu od diskriminacije [The Proceedingsfor Protecton against Discriminaton], in Materijal pripremljen za obuku sudija i tuilaca o Zakonu o zabrani diskriminacije, [Materialprepared for judicial and prosecutorial training on the Law on the Prohibiton of Discriminaton], p. 22.


3/8

3POLICY BRIEF 5

Boris Topigraduatedfrom the Law School ofthe University of BanjaLuka and received hisMasters Degree inInternatonal HumanRights Law from theUniversity of Oxford,

United Kingdom.He has a wealth ofexperience in the fieldof human rights gainedthrough his workin the Insttuton ofOmbudsman for HumanRights of Bosnia andHerzegovina, HumanRights Department ofthe OSCE Mission to BiHand the European Courtof Human Rights.

the plaintffthus contributng to the success ofthe instgated proceedings.However, despite the said procedural optons,only one NGO (Vaa prava) has undertakenjudicial proceedings for protecton against dis-criminaton under the LPDBiH, which providedthe inital jurisprudence.8In an effort to explainthe low level of engagement of the non-gover-nmental sector in judicial proceedings for protec-ton against discriminaton, this Brief addressesthe key legal and practcal obstacles preventngNGOs from partcipatng more actvely in suchform of combang discriminaton.

2. LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS: OBSTACLES

AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS2.1. Collectve LawsuitThe obligaton of the plaintffto prove the exis-tence of a justfied interest for filing the collec-tve lawsuit set forth in the LPDBiH somewhatdiminishes the procedural strength of the collec-tve lawsuit. In additon, for the collectve law-suit to be admissible, the plaintffmust at leastmake it plausible that the defendants conductwas discriminatve against a number of personspredominantly belonging to a certain group.The Croatan ant-discriminaton law deals with

the issue in the same manner,9while the ant-discriminaton law in Serbia adopted a differ-ent approach. Namely, according to the Law onGender Equality of the Republic of Serbia10non-governmental organisatons are granted a stat-utory right in case of discriminaton of a num-ber of persons. The said Law, however, does notspecifically oblige them to prove the existenceof a legal interest in filing a lawsuit, nor are theyobliged to make it plausible that at the tme offiling the lawsuit the defendants conduct wasdiscriminatve against a number of people.11

Also, the Law on Prohibiton of Discriminatonof Republic of Serbia12does not prescribe eitherthat the organisatons whose scope of actvi-tes includes protecton from discriminaton

prove the existence of legal interest for filing alawsuit. The introducton of a similar provisionin Bosnia and Herzegovina would clearly em-phasize that the establishment of a plausiblediscriminaton against a number of persons issubject of the evidentary procedure, and not,as the current provision prescribes, a subject ofassessment of admissibility of the lawsuit. Withthe eliminaton of the vague and arbitrary crite-rion of justfied interest, the legal standing ofnon-governmental organizatons in this contextwould be both unambiguous and more broadlyand explicitly defined.The LPDBiH does not impose restrictons as tothe types of claims which non-governmentalorganisatons may make in collectve lawsuits.

However, such an open legislatve solutonwas not adopted in the comprehensive ant-discriminaton laws in the neighbouring coun-tries. Bearing in mind that collectve lawsuit is anew mechanism in our law, the specificaton ofclaims that may be made in collectve lawsuitswould be a welcome amendment to the Law.This would clearly show that non-governmentalorganizatons as persons with a legal standinghave a broad range of claims at their disposaland it would remove dilemmas related to thequeston of whether the legal standing of non-

governmental organizat

ons tofi

le a collect

velawsuit includes making a claim for compensa-ton of damages.

2.2. NGOs as a Third Party in aProceedings

In terms of regulatng the partcipaton of thirdpartes in proceedings, the LPDBiH, using theCroatan legislatve soluton as a model, al-lows NGOs to partcipate in proceedings onlyas an interveneron behalf of the plaintff. Inthat regard, it is of interest that the legislator

did not opt for the use of the mechanism ofamici curiae friend of the court (which alre-ady exists in proceedings before the Consttu-tonal Court of BiH13) as a form of providing

8 At the tme of writng this Policy Brief, courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina had only passed three judgments pursuant to theLPDBiH: 1) Mostar Municipal Court, Judgment no. P 58 0 P 056658 09 P of 6 July 2010 (E. B. case, related to discriminaton ineducaton on grounds of disability); 2) Livno Municipal Court, Judgment no. 68 0 P 017561 of 7 October 2011 (Katovic case,related to discriminaton on grounds of religion); and 3) Mostar Municipal Court, Judgment no. 58 PS 08563 11 Ps of 27 April2012 (the two schools under one roof case).9 Zakon o suzbijanju diskriminacije Republike Hrvatske [Law on the Suppression of Discriminaton of the Republic of Croata],Official Gazee of Republic of Croata 85/08, Artcle 24.10 Zakon o ravnopravnostpolova Republike Srbije [Law on Gender Equality of the Republic of Serbia], Official Gazee of theRepublic of Serbia 104/2009, Artcle 43.11

Marijana Pajvani, Nevena Petrui

and Senad Jaarevi

, Komentar Zakona o ravnopravnostpolova [Comments on the Lawon Gender Equality], (Belgrade: Center of Modern Skills, 2010), p. 110.

12 Zakon o zabrani diskriminacije Republike Srbije [Law on the Prohibiton of Discriminaton of the Republic of Serbia],Official Gazee of the Republic of Serbia 22/09,Artcle 46.13 Consttutonal Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Pravila Ustavnog suda Bosne i Hercegovine [the Rules of the ConsttutonalCourt of Bosnia and Herzegovina], (Sarajevo: Consttutonal Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2005), Artcle 47.


4/8


5/8

5POLICY BRIEF 5

rule according to which each party is obligedto pay its expenses in advance,19such as courtfees, the cost of expert witnesses or the costof witnesses do not represent a partcularlystmulatng factor in achieving a more signifi-cant legal actvism of NGOs in the field of com-bang discriminaton.Finally, there are also technical obstacles thatare preventng NGOs from using the proceduralroles granted to them by the LPDBiH. Namely,the lack of records on instgated proceedingsfor protecton against discriminaton preventsnon-governmental organisatons to tmely ide-ntfy all current civil proceedings in the field ofdiscriminaton and to, based on all relevant fac-tors, decide on their engagement in them.

3.2 Potental SolutonsThe recogniton of the importance of proce-dural roles of NGOs in public interest proceed-ings, such as ant-discriminaton proceedings,is no guarantee that NGOs will partcipate ina significant number of proceedings with theaim of protectng public interest. In additonto recogniton of their procedural positon,additonal actvites should be undertaken, es-pecially in transitonal societes, with the goalof changing the percepton according to which

the protect

on of public interest primarily be-longs to the state structures.One way of overcoming this percepton is thepartcipaton in the actvites related to creatnga stmulatng environment for development ofcivil society. Building the capacites of non-gov-ernmental organizatons in order to increasetheir engagement in public interest actvites,such as partcipaton in ant-discriminatonproceedings is one such actvity. For example,in neighbouring Croata, a well-organized stru-cture composed of three parts was establishedwith the goal of supportng efficient develop-

ment of civil society and strengthening its ca-pacites: Offi ce for Cooperaton with NGOs,Council for Development of Civil Society andNatonal Foundaton for Civil Society. Thesebodies, which comprise representatves of the

governmental and non-governmental sectors,have undertaken numerous actvites aimed atcreatng an environment conducive to devel-opment of civil society. By offering informatonrelated to the allocaton of EU pre-accessionfunds such as IPA, resources have been provid-ed for funding actvites related to strengthen-ing the role and capacites of non-governmen-tal organizatons in the field of antdiscrimina-ton, including improvement of the process ofpunishing discriminatory actons through judi-cial proceedings.20

Positve experience from the region suggeststhat creatng a framework for insttutonalcooperaton between the governmental andnon-governmental sectors has the potental to

contribute to development of civil society andthus to its improved engagement in public in-terest actvites, including combatng discrimi-naton. However, the general framework andstate insttutonalizaton of cooperaton andsupport to non-governmental organizatonsmay create a suitable environment, but that initself will not bring urgent and necessary mea-sures for greater engagement of NGOs in com-batng discriminaton. Therefore, establishinga separate foundaton modelled on CroatasNatonal Foundaton for Civil Society may play

an important role in providingfi

nancial sup-port to non-governmental organizatons thatseek to become involved in actvites aimed atpreventng discriminaton through judicial pro-ceedings. Cooperaton between different non-governmental organisatons stands out as oneof the ways for overcoming limited human andfinancial resources. Thus, non-governmentalorganizatons that mostly perform work relatedto the law and provision of legal aid can appeardirectly before courts, whereas organizatonsworking on documentaton and collecton ofdata can gather and process statstcal data or

carry out other research needed for successfulapplicaton of procedural roles.21In this regard,as positve examples in Bosnia and Herzegov-ina, we might point out the actvites of theOpen Society Fund Bosnia and Herzegovina22

19 Zakon o parnikom postupku Republike Srpske [Civil ProcedureCode of Republika Srpska], Official Gazee of RepublikaSrpska 58/03, 85/03, 74/05, 63/07, 49/09, Artcle 384, and Zakon o parninom postupku Federacije BiH [Civil Procedure Codeof the Federaton BiH], Official Gazee of the Federaton of BiH 53/03, 73/05 and 119/06, Artcle 384.20 For more informaton see: Office for Cooperaton with NGOs of the Government of Republic of Croata, IPA 2008, hp://www.uzuvrh.hr/stranica.aspx?pageID=156 (accessed on October 24, 2012).21 In the Czech Republic, for example, non-governmental organizatons did precisely this in judicial proceedings for the protectonof Roma rights. See European Roma Rights Center, Humanitarian Law Center and Minority Rights Center, Prirunik za advokate o

zastupanju Roma rtava diskriminacije [Handbook for A

orneyson Representat

on of Roma Vict

ms of Discriminat

on], (Budapest:European Roma Rights Center; Belgrade: Humanitarian Law Centar, Minority Rights Centre, 2005) p. 113. Also compare EuropeanRoma Rights Centre, Interights and Migraton Policy Group, Strategic Litgaton of Race Discriminaton in Europe: from Principles toPractce (Budapest: European Roma Rights Centre; London: Interights; Brussels: Migraton Policy Group, 2004), p. 62.22 For more informaton, see Open Society Fund B&H Ant-Discriminaton Program hp://www.diskriminacija.ba/ (accessedon October 23, 2012).


6/8

UNUSED POTENTIAL6

(within which this Policy Brief and the Report itis based on were produced), as well as the re-cent establishment of a network of civil societyorganisatons called the Equality Forum23.In additon to that, the establishment of sys-temic cooperaton between NGOs and legalclinics created at law schools or student orga-nizatons with a similar profile can serve as amechanism for overcoming the limited humanresources. This way, students are able to carryout the necessary research, thus giving experi-enced jurists from the organizaton more tmeto beer prepare the cases.24

With regards to minimising financial barriers,some ant-discriminaton laws contain provi-sions according to which the plaintffin ant-dis-

criminaton cases is exempt from advance pay-ment of the costs of proceedings and that thesecosts must be paid for by the court.25It can beassumed that the introducton of a similar pro-vision to the laws in Bosnia and Herzegovinawould contribute to a beer implementaton ofthe LPDBiH and to a more actve engagement ofnon-governmental organisatons in proceedingsfor the protecton against discriminaton, espe-cially with regards to filing collectve lawsuits.On the other hand, the procedural roles whichshould not be too much of a financial burden

for an organisat

on should be recognised andused. Namely, as opposed to the partcipatonas a party in the proceedings, the partcipatonin the role of an intervener should not incursignificant financial costs. In that case, non-gov-ernmental organisatons may directly intervenein proceedings using their current findings andskills, not needing to engage a lawyer or em-ploy a person that meets the requirements forthe representaton.

4. ADDITIONAL MECHANISMS FOR

A MORE EFFECTIVE ENGAGEMENTOF NGOs IN ANTI-DISCRIMINATIONPROCEEDINGS

For a successful ant-discriminaton lawsuit,especially the one of strategic significance,

it is especially important to develop a mediastrategy and, in some cases, to create widercoalitons. Development of appropriate me-dia strategy lends greater significance of theinstgated lawsuit, and contributes to initatngpublic debate and raising public awareness re-garding discriminaton cases.Another useful tactcs that organizatons ofcivil society employ in strengthening their pro-cedural role in ant-discriminaton proceedingsis cooperaton with ombudsman insttutons.These insttutons are able to provide civil so-ciety organizatons with necessary statstcaldata or they can, through their own actvites,establish the relevant facts in an individualcase or become involved in proceedings as

interveners and thus lend support to the non-governmental organizaton, whether it is ap-pearing in the proceeding as the plaintff oractng as support to the victm of discrimina-ton. Experience from other countries confirmsthis. Reports from Lithuania, forexample, indi-cate that the ombudsmans interventon in thecapacity of a third party had crucial impact onthe successful outcome in the first case of ra-cial discriminaton brought before Lithuaniancourts.26

An important means for successful ant-dis-

criminat

on proceedings is the so-called situ-aton testng. In situaton testng, volunteersare used as testers (voluntary testers of dis-criminaton) in the field, who, using the meth-od of observaton, establish whether discrimi-natory acts exist. One or more persons maybe found in the role of testers who person-ally or directly engage in a situaton in order tocheck the existence of discriminaton.27Situ-aton testng is an important way for makingit plausible that discriminaton occurred28thusshifing the burden of proof to the defendant.Procedural rules in Bosnia and Herzegovina do

not contain a provision which prohibits the useof situaton testng. However, the introductonof explicit provisions on the permissibility ofthe use of situaton testng in proceedings forthe protecton against discriminaton or grant-ing legal standing to the voluntary tester of

23 For more informaton, see The Helsinki Commiee for Human Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, hp://www.bh-hchr.org/(accessed October 23, 2012).24 James A. Goldston Public Interest Litgaton in Central and Eastern Europe: Roots, Prospects and Challenges, Human RightsQuarterly 28 (2006), p. 526.25 For example, The Law on Gender Equality of the Republic of Serbia contains such a provision in Artcle 48.26 See Jolanta Samuolyte, Applying situaton testng successfully to prove discriminaton based on ethnicity, in The Role of

NGOs and Trade Unions in Combatng Discriminaton, ed. Richard Polacek (Luxembourg: Publicat

ons Offi

ce of the EuropeanUnion, 2009).27 Vladimir V. Vodineli, Graansko pravna zatta od diskriminacije [Civil Law Protecton against Discriminaton], Heretcus:asopis za preispitvanje prolost[Heretcus: Magazine for Re-examinaton of the Past] vol. VI, No. 3 - 4 (2008), p. 41.28 European Roma Rights Center, Humanitarian Law Center and Minority Rights Center, Handbook for Aorneys on Representatonof Roma Victms of Discriminaton, p. 47.


7/8

7POLICY BRIEF 5

discriminaton to file a lawsuit for the protec-ton against discriminaton, as provided for inLPD of Republic of Serbia,29would represent agood and useful soluton for Bosnia and Herze-govina. This way the range of possible actvitesof NGOs in combatng discriminaton wouldadditonally be expanded and strengthened.

5. CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS

Amending the existng ant-discriminaton le-gal framework in Bosnia and Herzegovina30with comprehensive ant-discriminaton pro-visions certainly represents an encouragingprogress in the field of protecton against dis-criminaton. By recognising the importanceof their procedural role, non-governmentalorganisatons are given a new opportunity tomake the prohibiton of discriminaton appliedmore effectvely through judicial proceedings.Certain shortcomings that can be found withregards to the adopted laws on the status ofNGOs in ant-discriminaton proceedings donot lessen their importance in any way. Stll,certain improvements of the current legal pro-visions and actvites on removing practcal ob-stacles which prevent NGOs from a more ac-

tve engagement in judicial proceedings mustcertainly be done.In this regard, the following recommendatonsarise from the above analysis:

Recommendatons for the Legislatve Impro-

vement

1) The norms regulatng collectve lawsuitneeds to be enhanced through the amend-ment to the provisions which oblige plaintffsto prove the existence of justfied interest andto prove the likelihood that the conduct of the

defendant violated the right of a number ofpersons as a requirement for the admissibilityof a lawsuit.2) It is necessary to clearly determine whichclaims may be made in a collectve lawsuit.3) Plaintffs in proceedings for protectonagainst discriminaton should be exempt fromthe obligaton of covering the costs of the pro-ceedings in advance.4)The opton of providing support to victmsof discriminaton must be expanded throughthe introducton of the mechanism of amicuscuriae.

5) Non-governmental organisatons as suchmust be allowed to represent victms of dis-criminaton, and must be accorded the statu-tory right to act on their own behalf also inindividual cases, subject to obtaining consentfrom the victm of discriminaton.6) The use of situaton testng must be clearlyand explicitly allowed as a method of proof inproceedings for protecton against discrimina-ton.

Recommendatons for the State How to

Motvate NGOs

1) The governmental sector should take thenecessary steps to create a stmulatng envi-ronment for more efficient and actve involve-

ment of NGOs in ant-discriminaton proceed-ings. These actvites could include creatngmechanisms to support the development ofcivil society, such as se ng up a foundatonproviding support to organizatons of civil soci-ety in ant-discriminaton proceedings.2) Relevant insttutons in Bosnia and Herze-govina (primarily the High Judicial and Pros-ecutorial Council BiH, the Ministry of HumanRights and Refugees and the Insttuton of theHuman Rights Ombudsman of BiH) should cre-ate easily accessible records on judicial pro-

ceedings inst

gated under the LPDBiH.

Recommendatons for NGOs

1)Non-governmental organizatons should paypartcular aenton to the on-going training oftheir staffwith regards to regulatons prohib-itng discriminaton so that more and moreorganizatons can responsibly take on the roleof intervener in individual ant-discriminatonlawsuits and strengthen their capacites for fil-ing collectve lawsuits.2)Efforts should contnue in creatng coalitonsand networks of non-governmental organiza-tons for combatng discriminaton, which willenable synergy, division of roles and maximiz-ing the effects of NGO engagement in ant-dis-criminaton proceedings.3) Lobbying should be undertaken for thepurpose of creatng a legal and insttutonalframework for the development of civil soci-ety, including the establishment of a founda-ton that will support civil society organiza-tons in ant-discriminaton proceedings.

29 The Law on Prohibiton of Discriminaton of Republic of Serbia, Artcle 46, paragraph 3.30 This includes the Consttuton of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Law on Gender Equality in Bosnia and Herzegovina and provisionson the prohibiton of discriminaton in the labour field prescribed by the existng labour laws in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Open Society Fund B&H

Ant-Discriminaton

Program

The policy brief isproduced in theframework of the Open

Society Fund B&HAnt-DiscriminatonProgram, which bringstogether partnerorganizatons acrossB&H divided into fourteams commied to keyactvites in the field ofcombatng discriminaton:monitoring,documentaton andreportng, strategiclitgaton, policy analysis,and advocacy.For more informaton on

the Open Society FundB&H Ant-DiscriminatonProgram, please visitthe websitewww.diskriminacija.ba.

Open

Society FundBosnia & Herzegovina


8/8

UNUSED POTENTIAL8

SOURCES

BiH Regulatons, Documents and Court Decisions

1. Consttutonal Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Pra-

vila Ustavnog suda Bosne i Hercegovine [Rules of theConsttutonal Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina]. (Sa-rajevo: Consttutonal Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina,2005). Available at: hp://ccbh.ba/public/down/pravi-la_bos.pdf (accessed on October 19, 2012).

2. Mostar Municipal Court. Judgment no. 58 PS 0856311 Ps. April 27, 2012.

3. Mostar Municipal Court. Judgment no. P 58 0 P056658 09 P. July 6, 2010.

4. Livno Municipal Court. Judgment no. 68 0 P 017561.October 7, 2011.

5. Zakon o parninom postupku Federacije BiH [Ci-vil Procedure Code of the Federaton of BiH]. Offici-al Gazee of the Federaton of BiH, 53/03, 73/05 and119/06.

6. Zakon o parninom postupku Republike Srpske [Ci-vil Procedure Code of Republika Srpska]. Official Gazeeof the Republika Srpska, 58/03, 85/03, 74/05, 63/07,49/09.

7. Zakon o zabrani diskriminacije [Law on the Prohibi-ton of Discriminaton].Official Gazee of BiH, 59/09.

Foreign Regulatons and Jurisprudence

1. Zakon o suzbijanju diskriminacije Republike Hrvat-ske [Law on the Suppression of Discriminaton of theRepublic of Croata]. Official Gazee of the Republic ofCroata, 85/08.

2. Zakon o ravnopravnost polova Republike Srbije

[Law on Gender Equality of the Republic of Serbia]. Offi-cial Gazee of the Republic of Serbia, 104/2009.

3. Zakon o zabrani diskriminacije Republike Srbije [Lawon the Prohibiton of Discriminaton of the Republic ofSerbia]. Official Gazee of the Republic of Serbia, 22/09.

4. Zakon o zabrani diskriminacije Republike Crne Gore[Law on the Prohibiton of Discriminaton of the Repu-blic of Montenegro]. Official Gazee of the Republic ofMontenegro, 46/10.

Internatonal Documents

1.Council Directve 2000/43/EC of June 29, 2000 im-plementng the principle of equal treatment betweenpersons irrespectve or racial or ethnic origin.Official

Journal of the European Union L180/2000.2. Council Directve 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000establishing a general framework for equal treatmentin employment and occupaton.Official Journal of theEuropean Union L303/2000.

Books and Artcles

1. European Roma Rights Center, Humanitarian LawCenter and Minority Rights Center, Prirunik za advoka-te o zastupanju Roma rtava diskriminacije [Handbo-ok for Aorneys on Representaton of Roma Victms of

Discriminaton]. Budapest: European Roma Rights Cen-ter; Belgrade: Humanitarian Law Center and MinorityRights Center, 2005.

2. European Roma Rights Centre, Interights and Migra-

ton Policy Group, Strategic Litgaton of Race Discrimi-naton in Europe: from Principles to Practce. Budapest:European Roma Rights Centre; London: Interights; Bru-ssels: Migraton Policy Group, 2004.

3. Goldston, James A. Public Interest Litgaton in Cen-tral and Eastern Europe: Roots, Prospects and Challen-ges. Human Rights Quarterly28, issue 2 (2006).

4. Horvat, Ana. Novi standardi hrvatskoga i europskogaantdiskriminacijskog zakonodavstva [New Standards inCroatan and European Ant-discriminaton Legislaton].Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu[Compendium of theLaw School of Zagreb] 58, issue 6, 2008; pp. 14531498.

5. Ilieva, Margarita. Uloga NVO-a u primeni Zakonaprotv diskriminacije: Iskustvo iz Bugarske [The Roleof NGOs in the Implementaton of Ant-discriminaton

Law: Experience from Bulgaria]. In Sprovoenje Zakonaprotv diskriminacije: izazov za Kosovo[Implementatonof Ant-discriminaton Law: A Challenge for Kosovo], pp.1021. Pristna: OSCE Mission in Kosovo, 2007.

6. Nezirovic, Goran. Postupak za zattu od diskrimina-cije [The Proceeding for Protecton against Discrimina-ton]. In Materijal pripremljen za obuku sudija i tuilacao Zakonu o zabrani diskriminacije, [Material preparedfor judicial and prosecutorial training on the Law on theProhibiton of Discriminaton], Judicial and Prosecutori-al Training Center RS and Judicial and Prosecutorial Trai-ning Center FBiH, April 3, 2012,. hp://www.rs.cest.gov.ba/index.php?opton=com_docman&task=view_category&Itemid=30&subcat=237&catd=44&limitstart=0&limit=15&lang=lat, (accessed on May 15, 2012)

7. Pajvani, Marijana, Nevena Petrui and Jaarevi,Senad. Komentar Zakona o ravnopravnostpolova [Co-mments on the Law on Gender Equality]. Belgrade: Cen-ter for Modern Skills, 2010.

8. Samuolyte, Jolanta. Applying situaton testng su-ccessfully to prove discriminaton based on ethnicity.In The Role of NGOs and Trade Unions in CombatngDiscriminaton, edited by Richard Polacek. Luxembourg:Publicatons Office of the European Union, 2009.

9. Uzelac, Alan. Postupak pred sudom [The Proceedingbefore Court]. In Vodiuz Zakon o suzbijanju diskrimina-cije [Guide Accompanying the Law on the Suppressionof Discriminaton], edited by Tena imonoviEinwalter,pp. 93112. Zagreb: Office for Human Rights of the Go-

vernment of the Republic of Croata, 2009.10. Vodineli, Vladimir V. Graanskopravna zatta oddiskriminacije [Civil Law Protecton against Discrimi-naton]. In Heretcus: asopis za preispitvanje prolost[Heretcus: Magazine for Reexaminaton of the Past] 6,No. 34 (2008), pp. 2245.

11. eravi, Goran.Analiza insttucionalne suradnje iz-medju vladinog i nevladinog sektora u BiH [Analysis ofInsttutonal Cooperaton between the Governmentaland Nongovernmental Sectors in BiH]. Sarajevo: Krona-uer Consultng, 2008.

Analitka - Center for Social Research is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental policy

research and development center based in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The mission ofAnalitka is to offer well-researched, relevant, innovatve and practcal recommendatons that

help drive the public policy process forward, and to promote inclusive policy changes that are

responsive to public interest.ANALITIKA

For more informaton

contact:

Analitka Center forSocial Research

[email protected]

Copyright 2013Analitka Center for

Social Research

Analitika - Policy Brief -NGO 24april2013 (ENG)

Documents

Transcript of Analitika - Policy Brief -NGO 24april2013 (ENG)