No. 07-00-465/2025-02  Date: 9. 12. 2025.

OPINION

The opinion was issued following a complaint filed by AA against Bank …, due to discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint stated that the complainant is a deaf person and that employees at the Bank did not accept communication through an authorized interpreter for Serbian sign language in Serbian, nor did they recognize his speech, which as a deaf person he develops and uses in accordance with his abilities. It was further stated that he attempted to reactivate the Bank’s mobile application, of which he is a client, by telephone, and that during the phone conversation, through the interpreter, he duly provided all requested information necessary for identification – first name, last name, and personal identification number (JMBG), and that the Bank’s operator refused to carry out the reactivation of the application, stating that the procedure could be performed exclusively in person at a branch. In its statement, the Bank confirmed that the complainant attempted to reactivate the mobile application on June 2, 2025, as well as that the digital banking service can be reactivated in one of the following three ways: 1. independently, if the client knows their reactivation code, which they defined themselves during the initial activation of the application; 2. through the bank’s contact center, with prior client identification and 3. at a bank branch. It was further stated that the employee at the Bank could not, at the beginning of the conversation, determine with certainty that the person calling on behalf of the client was an authorized interpreter and represented the client, which is why, for security and protection of the client’s interests, she instructed the client that it was necessary to reactivate the application at a bank branch, as well as that the reactivation of the application is extremely sensitive from the perspective of protecting the client’s interests, which is why the bank acts with special care during the identification process. It was further stated that, on the following day, the complainant contacted the bank through an authorized interpreter, and that the Bank “accommodated him on this occasion” and reactivated the requested service, as it was able to reliably establish that the client had contacted the Bank through an authorized interpreter. Given the statements in the response that the service was provided to the complainant already the following day, the Commissioner requested that the complainant state whether he maintains the complaint, that is, whether he agrees that the consequences of the conduct due to which he addressed the Commissioner have been remedied. The complainant stated on that occasion that he maintains his complaint and believes that the problems he faced have not been fully remedied, and that he had previously had similar experiences in attempts to communicate with the Bank through a sign language interpreter. He further clarified that both calls to the Bank, on June 2 and 3, were made through the same sign language interpreter, so it is not clear based on which criteria the Bank disputes his legitimacy, and that he believes that refusing communication with deaf persons through a sign language interpreter constitutes a serious violation of the right to access information and services and to equal treatment. Finally, he stated that he wishes for the procedure to continue because it is important that such situations do not recur in the future, in order to enable deaf persons to exercise their rights without hindrance and to have equal access to all services. During the proceedings, the Commissioner established that it is undisputed between the parties that AA, on June 2, 2025, using the services of a sign language interpreter, contacted the Bank by telephone with the intention of using the mobile application reactivation service in one of the prescribed ways, and that on that day the Bank’s operator refused to allow him to use that service and requested that he obtain the service by coming in person to a Bank branch. It was further established that the statement did not indicate that there was any doubt regarding the identity of the complainant, that is, the client, or that he had failed to meet the necessary identification requirements when attempting to use the reactivation service, which could have been a justified reason for refusing to provide the service and for requesting additional confirmation of the user’s identity, as well as that there are no precise rules and that the position of users who use sign language interpreter services is uncertain in terms of whether they will be able to exercise their right to the service each time they contact the Bank by telephone with the assistance of an interpreter. Based on the above, the Commissioner issued the opinion that the Bank … on June 2, 2025, refused to provide AA with the mobile application reactivation service through a sign language interpreter via the Bank’s contact center, thereby violating the provisions of Article 6 in conjunction with Article 17 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination. The Bank … was given the recommendation to issue a written apology to AA for such conduct; to establish a precise procedure for reactivating the mobile application that will not be discriminatory against deaf persons and persons with hearing impairments, as well as deaf persons who use sign language interpreter services, in accordance with the Bank’s needs regarding the security of service provision, that is, to provide employees with clear instructions on the application of the procedure when dealing with clients who use sign language interpreter services, as well as to comply in the future with regulations on the prohibition of discrimination in its work.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY
Milan Antonijević