no. 07-00-31/2020-02 date: 8.3.2021.
The opinion was issued in the procedure regarding the complaint of AA from …, filed against the Public Company BB, Public Company VV, and the Municipality of GG due to discrimination on the grounds of disability. The complaint states that the facility in st. … no. … in …, which is owned by the Municipality of GG, and which is used by public companies, is inaccessible to persons with disabilities. During the procedure, it was determined that the Municipal Assembly of GG passed Decision no. … on the transfer of immovable property in public ownership for use by the Public Company VV. Having in mind the above, as well as that the inspection of the Real Estate Cadastre determined that the Municipality of GG is registered as the owner of the facility, and the Public Company VV as the user of the facility, the Commissioner requested a statement from the President of the Municipality of GG and the Public Company VV. In the statement of the President of the Municipality of GG, it is stated that the entrance to the facility in st. … no. …, which is used by the Public Company VV, is located on almost the same level with the sidewalk, “with a possible height difference of 15 centimeters between the sidewalk and the entrance to the premises”, that work with clients in the Public Company VV is performed on the ground floor, and that this part of the facility is closest to the street and that it is not difficult to reach, that there is currently no ramp for bridging altitude obstacles or a marked parking space for people with disabilities, but that the Municipality of GG, as the founder of the Public Company VV, will take additional care and propose to the Public Company VV to take all necessary measures to make the facility fully accessible to persons with disabilities. The Commissioner asked the complainant to state whether he stands by the complaint. The complainant informed the Commissioner that he stands by the complaint because the door is not wide enough for people with disabilities in wheelchairs to enter the public company facility, as well as “that there is a step in front of the door and when the door opens there is another step and there is not enough space in the facility for people with disabilities to turn around their wheelchairs.” Attached to the letter, the complainant submitted a photograph of the entrance, which shows that there is a step about 15 cm high at the entrance to the facility. When analyzing the case, the Commissioner had in mind the rule on distribution of the burden of proof. According to this rule, the complainant should make it probable that the person against whom he complains has committed an act of discrimination due to some of his personal characteristics, and if he does, the burden of proof that the act did not violate the principle of equality, that is the principle of equal rights and obligation, lies on the person against whom the complaint was filed. The Commissioner commends the efforts of the Municipality and the Public Company to make the facility accessible to persons with disabilities, however, bearing in mind the rules on distribution of the burden of proof, that is, that the Municipality and the Public Company have not provided evidence that the facility is accessible in accordance with prescribed standards, the Commissioner issued the opinion that in the specific case there was a violation of the provisions of Articles 6, 17 and 26 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, in connection with the provisions of Articles 13 and 16 of the Law on Prevention of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities. The Commissioner recommended to the Municipality of GG, as the owner of the facility, and to the Public Company VV, as the user of the facility, to take all necessary measures in order to ensure accessibility of services of this company to persons with disabilities using wheelchairs.
COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY