For example, the Chancellor received a petition from a university student who found that they had been discriminated due to their special needs when applying to participate in job shadowing, as they used the assistance of a guide dog. The Chancellor found that even though the petitioner had been treated differently due to their special needs, it did not constitute discrimination, taking into account the process of applying to become a job shadow. The Chancellor also received a petition concerning the study opportunities of a child with special needs in a vocational school. The Chancellor noted that the school has to consider adapting its existing possibilities to a person’s special needs but the school is not required to make unreasonable efforts to ensure that everyone could study any speciality that they wish. The Chancellor also received a petition concerning the age restrictions for participation in the national dance celebration. The Estonian Song and Dance Celebration Foundation explained that optional approximate age ranges for the candidates were established for some types of dance groups in view of the different level of preparation of the groups and the concept of the celebration because at the 2014 dance celebration each type of dance group had been assigned a role in a family. The Foundation assured that the candidates admitted to the dance celebration were chosen in the course of preliminary rehearsals based on their dancing skills. Therefore, the Chancellor had no basis to consider the procedure for participation in the dance celebration as discriminatory. However, the organisers of the dance celebration noted that after the dance celebration, inter alia, the justification for establishing the age ranges of the groups will be reviewed. The Chancellor was also contacted by a person with a request for an explanation concerning the application of the principle of gender equality in connection with an incident at school. At a nationwide competition children had received prizes which were handed over to boys with ceremony while the girls had to perform additional tasks to get the prizes and instead of being handed over the prizes were placed on the floor. In 2014, the Chancellor received a few complaints concerning the alleged discriminating behaviour of private persons, but the Chancellor did not adopt a substantive position on these issues. For example, a person complained that they had been discriminated based on their ethnicity when renting a point of sale. However, the petitioner decided to have recourse to the Equality Commissioner for an opinion, and therefore the Chancellor did not initiate proceedings. In another case the petitioner noted that professional associations treated them less favourably as a foreign citizen because Estonian was used as the language of communication. Thus, no conciliation proceedings were carried out in 2014 and the Chancellor has still not approved any agreements reached in conciliation proceedings. In the Chancellor’s previous overviews, the Chancellor’s memorandums concerning gaps in legal regulation or failure to implement the existing provisions had also been explained. In this connection it is worth mentioning that on 9 October 2014 the Riigikogu adopted the Registered Partnership Act but the implementing legislation still needs to be passed. Unfortunately, the Equal Treatment Act has still not been revised. Previously, the Chancellor has drawn attention to the fact that it is contrary to the Constitution that the scope of application of the Equal Treatment Act has been defined narrowly and a different scope of protection has been established with regard to different attributes of discrimination (discrimination of 74