no. 07-00-484/2025-02 date: 15.10.2025.

OPINION

The opinion was issued in proceedings based on a complaint filed by A.A. against the Housing Community B.B. from New Belgrade, due to discrimination on the grounds of disability. In the complaint and the supplement to the complaint, it was stated that the complainant lives in a building on … street in New Belgrade, that she is a person with a disability with an established bodily impairment of 100%, that she has been denied access to the building even though the building has an entrance at ground level but its use is not permitted to residents, that she repeatedly asked the building manager to allow her to use the said entrance in order to go to medical appointments, but that the manager always refused. The complainant further stated that she last contacted the building manager in writing on 30 November 2024, and that afterward he “suddenly reinstated the ban on using the ground-level access to the building”, and that in front of the main entrance there is a slope whose incline is three times greater than prescribed, which makes it dangerous both for persons who use wheelchairs for mobility and for other persons who have difficulty moving. In his response and supplement to the response, the housing community manager stated that, following the complainant’s request, a tenants’ assembly was held, that a decision was made to collect offers for the construction of an inclined movable ramp next to the external staircase at the main entrance, that he also contacted the Military Institution …, which performs building maintenance services, that this institution informed the manager that it could not provide services related to the installation of an inclined movable ramp, and that none of the offers for installing an inclined movable ramp were accepted by the tenants due to the high cost of procurement and installation. The manager stated in his response that there is a sloped ramp at the external staircase in front of the main entrance, but with an incline greater than prescribed, and that the other entrance to the building cannot be used by residents for access to the building “for hygienic reasons,” that is, because that space was used more than thirty years ago for waste disposal, and is now leased. After conducting the proceedings, that is, after analyzing the allegations from the complaint, the supplement to the complaint, the response and supplement to the response, as well as the submitted evidence in the form of photographs, the Commissioner established that there is an entrance to the residential building on … street at ground level, and that it can be used for entering or exiting the building, given that the complainant stated she had previously used this entrance, which the housing community manager did not dispute. Furthermore, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality established that the housing community manager did not undertake all actions within his competence to make this entrance accessible to the complainant as a person with a disability and to other persons who use wheelchairs or have difficulty moving. Namely, it is undisputed that the residential building on … street has more than ten floors and that, under applicable regulations, it has an obligation to provide an accessible entrance. The Commissioner also could not accept the manager’s claims that the ground-level entrance cannot be used for entering and exiting the building for “hygienic reasons,” nor because the space within this entrance has been leased, for the reason that the complainant stated she had previously used this entrance without any difficulties, and that it is therefore indisputable that this entrance can be used for access to the building. Within the scope of his authority, and taking into account that the tenants’ assembly did not accept the offers for constructing an inclined movable ramp at the main entrance, the housing community manager was obliged to undertake appropriate actions so that this ground-level entrance would be put into function for unhindered use by the complainant, all in order to comply with applicable regulations regarding accessibility. For all of the above reasons, the Commissioner issued an opinion that the housing community on … street, as well as the manager of this housing community, failed to undertake all actions within their competence to enable unhindered access to the building for the complainant as a person with a disability, and thereby violated the provisions of Article 6 in conjunction with Article 26 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination. The housing community was recommended to undertake all actions within its competence in order to ensure an accessible entrance to the residential building on … street, either by constructing an inclined movable ramp at the main entrance or in another manner prescribed by law, or by making accessible the entrance previously used by the complainant, which is at ground level but is currently not in function.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY

Brankica Janković