no. 07-00-401/2023-02 date: 29.12.2023.

OPINION

The opinion was issued in the procedure regarding the complaint filed by BB against AA. In the complaint and the supplements to the complaint, it was stated that the complainant withdraws her pension and pays bills in the “Post Office” branch no. … since its opening in the hall of the court since she lives in the immediate vicinity. However, during July she was prevented from accessing this branch with the explanation of the security that the judges were protesting and that it was for court mail. The complainant stated that she had spine surgery, that she has difficulties moving, and that this approach hit her extremely hard because she is not able to go to another post office. According to the allegations in the statements, there is a separate “Post Office” counter in the AA building for payments of court services, to facilitate the meeting of all the needs that citizens have in the court, which can be numerous (litigation, criminal or family disputes, notarizations, obtaining international documents), and that counters of this type are also located in the Supreme Court building, the Palace of Justice, as well as in other state bodies. The statement further specified that AA is visited by about 6,000 citizens every day, and each of them has free access to the courthouse, regardless of citizenship, nationality, gender, and age, on the condition that they need to resolve issues within the jurisdiction of the court. The statement specified that it follows from the complaint that the applicant did not need to solve personal matters in court or use court services, so there is no discrimination on any basis. After the procedure was carried out and the facts established, it was established that the “Post of Serbia” indicated in its reply to the complainant that it does not restrict the arrival of users to any post office, including this one. It was further noted that the Rulebook on House Rules in the AA court building stipulates that the judicial guard is authorized to determine the identity and reasons for the person’s arrival in the court building, which he did in this particular case, having learned on that occasion the reason for the complainant’s arrival. That Rulebook explicitly prescribes the situations in which the judicial guard has the authority to prohibit a person from entering the courthouse – when the person possesses a weapon or a dangerous tool, when they are under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicants, or when they disturb order and peace. The Commissioner found that the AA’s statement that the condition for entering the building is the need of a specific person to resolve issues within the court’s jurisdiction does not derive from the provisions of the cited Rulebook. Article 7 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination stipulates that discrimination exists if a seemingly neutral provision, criterion, or practice places or could place a person or group of persons, due to their personal characteristics, in a disadvantageous position compared to other persons in the same or similar situation, unless a legitimate goal objectively justifies it, and the means to achieve that goal are appropriate and necessary. The Commissioner points out that even if the Rulebook prescribed such a neutral rule, such a restriction would have to be justified by a legitimate goal, and the means to achieve that goal would have to be appropriate and necessary. Bearing in mind the above, by applying the rule on shifting the burden of proof from Article 45 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, after the procedure, the Commissioner issued the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 7 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination and recommended AA to allow the complainant, in compliance with the regulations, access to the court, and thus to the Post Office located in the court building, taking into account her state of health and age.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY
Brankica Janković