no. 07-00-635/2023-02 date: 19 April 2024.

OPINION

The opinion was issued in the proceedings regarding the complaint of A. A. against B. B. company for professional rehabilitation and employment of persons with disabilities due to discrimination based on disability, religious or political beliefs, national affiliation or ethnic origin, health status, age, and level of education. In the complaint, it was stated, among other things, that the complainant has difficulty moving and is visually impaired and that she was employed at the Professional Orientation Company B. B. from April 3, 2020, to April 5, 2022. It was further stated that, after she applied for a disability pension, she found out that contributions for pension and disability insurance for the two years she worked in B. B. had not been paid. In the statement of director of B. B., it was specified that during the extent of the employment contract, A. A. was paid net salary, as well as related contributions, of which evidence has been submitted. In the course of the proceedings, the Republic Fund for Pension and Disability Insurance provided information that, upon inspection of the records of RFPIO-Analytical review of indebtedness and payment per insured person, it was determined that B. B. made the payment of contributions for pension and disability insurance that are paid at the expense of the employee for the period from April 3, 2022, to April 5, 2022, and that there is no evidence of the payment of contributions by the National Employment Service. In view of the above, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 37, paragraph 3 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, the Commissioner asked A.A. to declare within the time limit whether she considers that B. B. removed the consequences of the action that was the reason for submitting the complaint and whether she agrees that, in that case, the Commissioner does not act further on her complaint. The complainant replied that she did not think that B. B. removed the consequences of the actions that were the reason for submitting the complaint. In view of the above, the Commissioner determined that in this particular case, there is no violation of rights in terms of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, which does not exclude the possibility that in the procedures referred to by the complainant, there were some other violations of rights that are not within the competence of this state body. The Commissioner issued the opinion that in the proceedings regarding the complaint of A. A. against B. B. company for professional rehabilitation and employment of persons with disabilities it was established that the provisions of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination were not violated.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY
Brankica Janković