OPINION

The opinion was issued in the proceedings regarding the complaint filed by the attorney AA from .., on behalf and with the consent of BB, due to discrimination based on personal characteristics – national affiliation or ethnic origin and on the basis of disability. Attorney AA stated in the complaint that he believes that JP … – Functions of economic affairs and procurement – sub-functions of economic affairs – Service of wages and other incomes, and VV, director of the Accompanying function of internal audit in JP …, discriminated against his client because the Economic Affairs and Procurement Function, as an organizational part of JP …, “for seven months now”, refuses to act on the request of the Republic Fund for Pension and Disability Insurance – Branche for the city of …, regarding the updating of data on years of service for BB, in relation to the realization of the right to increased duration of years of service on the basis of disability, which prevented BB from realizing the right to a pension. In the complaint, it was stated that, as opposed to this organizational unit, the organizational part … of logistics in JP …, in which BB was previously employed, acted on the request of the Republic Fund for Pension and Disability Insurance – Branche for the city of …, and updated the data on years of service for BB. The complainant believes that the refusal of the Service of wages and other incomes to act on the request of the Republic Fund lies in the fact that BB “suffered bullying” due to his Montenegrin origin and disability by VV, the director of the Accompanying function of internal audit in JP …, and that the said director informally told BB that “while he is director, there will be no update of data on years of service for Montenegrin invalids”. In this regard, in accordance with Article 20 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, the complainant was required to supplement the complaint, in the form of evidence that would make it probable that VV, the director of the Accompanying function of internal audit, stated the above. Since the complainant did not supplement the complaint, the procedure in this part was suspended. Bearing in mind the above, the subject of further proceedings was to determine whether JP …, that is, the Economic Affairs and Procurement Function, as an organizational part of JP …, discriminated against BB on the basis of disability as his personal characteristic. In the statement of JP … – Economic Affairs and Procurement Function, it was stated that in May 2019, the competent official of the PDI Fund – Branch for the city of … submitted a request to JP … – Service of wages and other incomes, regarding the updating of data on years of service for, i.e. filling in the M8 forms, for the purpose of conducting the procedure at the request of BB for exercising the right to benefited years of service on the basis of disability. In the statement, it was specified that the main problem arose at the moment when it was established that BB lacked a document on the basis of which his data on years of service would be updated, i.e. the decision based on which the said person was granted the status of a peacetime military invalid of Group V. Bearing in mind the fact that the employer had no knowledge that BB had the status of a peacetime military invalid of Group V, immediately after a copy of the decision confirming the status of BB as a peacetime military invalid of Group V was submitted, a request for an opinion was sent to the director of the Republic Fund for Pension and Disability Insurance, followed by an urgency note. In the aforementioned documents, an opinion was requested as to whether the retrospective updating of data and retroactive entering is in accordance with the legislation, since JP … as an employer, during the entire period of the employment in this company, had no knowledge that BB had the status of a peacetime military invalid. In the course of the procedure, it was determined that JP … undertook actions to update BB’s data on years of service with increased duration based on disability, with a certain delay in the procedure that is not causally related to BB’s disability as a personal characteristic. The delay in processing the request did not lead to the impossibility for BB to realize the right to recognition of years of service with an increased duration on the basis of disability, taking into account that the PDI Fund – Branch for the city of…, ex officio updated the data on years of service. Therefore, the Commissioner gave an opinion that JP … in this particular case did not violate the provisions of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY

Brankica Janković