OPINION

The opinion was issued in the procedure regarding the complaint filed by A. against B. B. due to discrimination based on an assumed personal characteristic of health condition. The complaint stated, among other things, that on January 23, 2021, he came to the B. B. company intending to buy an original part for his passenger vehicle, which was regularly maintained in authorized B. B. services, as well as that on that occasion, he asked to inspect the vehicle card to be sure that the repair carried out in 2019 in Vienna was duly entered into the list. On that occasion, he noticed that on the first page where the “Current notes” on the vehicle, user, owner, and driver were listed it was written: “The gentlemen is a psychiatric case who is prohibited from entering the majority of B. B. authorized centers” “NN !! Tsr notified”. In his complaint, he stated that he found these comments highly unpleasant and disturbing, especially since he was not aware that he was a “psychiatric case,” at least not based on medical criteria, which caused him to feel humiliated and insulted. In the statement, B. B. did not dispute that it was a card kept in the information system for the vehicle the complainant owned and that the cited note for which the complaint was filed was entered in this card. They further stated that, bearing in mind that such a note written on the client’s vehicle card is inappropriate, the reported legal entity will try by all means to determine who and when wrote such a text, and request that this person be adequately sanctioned and that this text be deleted from the B. B. service system. In this regard, the Commissioner asked the complainant to declare whether he remains with the complaint. The complainant said he stands by his complaint, stating, “they think they can do whatever they want and even convince us that discrimination is a minor insult in an information system over which they have no control and that just happens to be theirs”, as well as that “maybe it looks benign, but to those who suffer discrimination of this kind, it does is not the case, because it is a phenomenon of the so-called discrimination ‘from the other side of the counter’”. Bearing in mind the provisions of Article 12 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, which prescribe, as one of the forms of discrimination: harassment and humiliating acts, the Commissioner stated that the disputed text in the Vehicle Card is discriminatory, because it creates a hostile, humiliating and insulting environment for the complainant. That kind of stigmatization is unacceptable regardless of whether someone has a mental disability or not. The fact that the client was provided with service despite such a remark does not lessen the fact that the comment violated the person’s dignity based on his assumed personal characteristics and that a humiliating and insulting environment was created for him. Furthermore, the Commissioner stated that B. B. did not submit evidence with the statement that this center is not responsible for entering the disputed note, nor proof that the note was entered outside the territory of Serbia and that they could not delete it from the system, as well as that following internal acts or signed contracts, the aforementioned is not within their jurisdiction, nor did they offer evidence that they took measures to remove the disputed notice from the Vehicle Card, given that this center was aware of the contents of the note, which they were obliged to do  following the rules on shifting the burden of proof from Article 45 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination. Bearing in mind all the aforementioned, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality issued the opinion that, failing to remove the note that is the subject of this complaint from the Vehicle Card, B. B. violated the provisions of Article 12 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination. B. B. was given a recommendation to remove notes from the complainant’s Vehicle Card that represent a violation of the complainant’s dignity based on his assumed personal characteristics, which create a humiliating and offensive environment, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the opinion with recommendation and to send a written apology to the complainant, as well as to comply with regulations on the prohibition of discrimination in the future within their regular jobs and activities.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY

Brankica Janković