No. 07-00-442/2019-02   date: 30.1.2020.

OPINION

The opinion was issued in the procedure regarding the complaint filed by AA against the budget inspectors of the Budget Inspection Service, BB and VV, due to discrimination based on national affiliation and membership in a political organization. The complaint states, inter alia, that during the inspection carried out in the period from April 3 to June 22, 2018 by budget inspectors of the Budget Inspection Service at the Gerontology Center, social and health institution for the care of adults from DD (hereinafter : Gerontology Center DD), the complainant was “not allowed” to participate in the inspection procedure, and that the budget inspectors did not inform “neither the complainant, nor other parties and witnesses in the procedure” of the legal provision that allows the procedure to be conducted in their mother tongue. The complaint clarified that the acting inspectors did not determine the language in which the procedure was conducted in order to enable the complainant, as a member of the Croatian national minority, to use his mother tongue during the procedure, which is why he considers that he is discriminated against on the basis of his nationality. In addition, the complainant considers that in this case he was also discriminated against on the basis of membership in a political organization, given that he is a “prominent member of an opposition party”, and that in this case it was a “manifest abuse of power of inspectors while performing their duties, against a political opponent, who is also a member of a people in a minority position.” In support of the above, he pointed out that “the legal provisions were very creatively applied to him, and not to others”, given that, as he further stated, the budget inspector submitted a request to initiate misdemeanour proceedings only against him, although for the period under inspection, from December 7 to 31, 2017, the responsible person in the Gerontology Center DD was EE, who was “not processed”. In the statement of the Budget Inspection Service and the acting budget inspectors, among other things, it is specified that in 2018, several inspections were performed, five of which were related to social protection institutions, and that the subject of inspection, by order and additional control orders, was also the Gerontology Center DD. Furthermore, it is stated that the inspection control in the Gerontology Center DD was performed in the period from April 3 to June 22, 2018, for the inspection period from January 1 to December 31, 2017, and that the complainant was requested to submit written explanations related to the factual situation established in the inspection procedure, given that he was the director of the supervised entity in the inspected period, from January 1 to December 6, 2017. According to further allegations of the Budget Inspection Service and the budget inspector, the complainant did not request that the inspection procedure be conducted in his mother tongue, but rather submitted his written explanations to the Budget Inspection Service in Serbian, in Latin script. It follows, from further allegations in the statement, that regarding the request for translation of the inspection report into Croatian, submitted by the complainant after the report was handed to him, the Budget Inspection Service made a request to the Provincial Secretariat for Education, Administration and National Minorities, and that the minutes, translated into Croatian, were submitted to him on August 6, 2018, i.e. that on September 29, 2018, “complete documentation produced in the procedure of inspection control, translated into Croatian” was delivered to him. Regarding the allegation that the misdemeanour report was filed only against the complainant, in the statement of the Budget Inspection Service and the budget inspector, it was specified that they were not aware that the complainant was a member of the Croatian national minority and a member of the FF party. Also, that on the occasion of the performed inspection in the Gerontology Center DD, two misdemeanour charges were filed with the Misdemeanour Court in DD, against the complainant, as the responsible person, and against another responsible person in the inspected period, for which evidence was submitted. After the conducted procedure and presented evidence, it was determined, among other things, that the control of financial and material operations and purposeful and legal use of funds was performed in the Gerontology Center DD, for the inspection period from January 1 to December 31, 2017, of which the Center was notified within the legally prescribed period. Furthermore, it was established that the inspection was performed in the presence of the director of the Gerontology Center EE and several employees, as well as that the complainant and employees of the Gerontology Center were asked for written explanations regarding the factual situation established in the inspection procedure. Taking into account all the above, and having in mind the provision of Article 17 of the Law on Inspection Supervision, which stipulates that the inspector notifies the supervised entity in writing about the upcoming inspection no later than three days before the beginning of supervision, i.e. that the provision of Article 9 paragraph 1 of the Decree on Work, Competences and Insignia of the Budget Inspectorate stipulates that the budget inspector is obliged to announce the inspection control to the head of the subject where the inspection control will be performed, and that in compliance with Article 12 paragraph 3 of the Decree on Work, Competences and Insignia of the Budget Inspectorate and Article 21 of the Law on Inspection Supervision, the complainant was invited to state his opinion on the facts established during the control procedure, the Commissioner finds that in this particular case it cannot be considered that the acting inspectors of the Budget Inspection Service did not allow the complainant to participate in the inspection procedure. Furthermore, regarding the allegation that he was not allowed to use his mother tongue in the inspection procedure during the procedure, it was established that the complainant submitted written explanations related to the established factual situation in the control procedure to the inspectors in Serbian, in Latin script, and that he submitted a request for translation into his mother tongue to the Budget Inspection Service after the entire control report was handed to him on July 2, 2018, as well as that a translation of the control report into Croatian was submitted to him upon submission of the request. The Commissioner had in mind that the provisions of Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Law on Official Use of Languages and Scripts, among other things, stipulate that, when one party – a member of a national minority, participates in the procedure, the procedure is, upon their request, conducted in the language of the national minority that is in official use in the body or organization conducting the procedure, while paragraph 5 of the same provision stipulates that, when several parties whose languages are not the same participate in the procedure, the procedure is conducted in one of the languages in official use in the body or organization which conducts the procedure, i.e. that if the parties do not agree on the language in which the procedure will be conducted, the language is determined by the body or organization before which the procedure is conducted, unless one of the parties requests that the procedure be conducted in Serbian, in which case the proceedings will be conducted in that language (paragraph 6). Having in mind the above, as well as the fact that the submitted evidence shows that the complainant did not request that the written explanations requested by the budget inspectors for the purposes of the procedure be submitted in his mother tongue, and that the Budget Inspection Service offered evidence that the complainant requested the translation of the documentation into Croatian after he was handed the record of inspection, and that the said request was acted upon, the Commissioner is of the opinion that in this particular case the complainant was not prevented from using his mother tongue. Furthermore, during the procedure it was also established that, after the control in the supervised entity, the misdemeanour procedure was initiated not only against the complainant, but also against another responsible person in the Gerontology Center DD during the inspection period. Taking into account all the above, it can be stated that by the actions of budget inspectors of the Budget Inspection Service during the inspection at the Gerontology Center, social and health institution for adult care DD, the complainant was not placed in an unjustifiably unfavourable position for reasons related to his personal characteristics – nationality and membership in a political organization. Therefore, the Commissioner gave the opinion that the budget inspectors of the Budget Inspection Service did not violate the provisions of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY
Brankica Janković