OPINION

The opinion was issued in the proceedings regarding the complaint filed by A. A. against B. B, entrepreneur of Cafe restaurant “…”, and V. V, due to discrimination based on sexual orientation. In the complaint, among other things, it was stated that V. V. insulted A. A. because of her sexual orientation by calling her “all the derogatory names,” “everyone other was you notorious dyke,” and that B. B. ,on August 8, 2018, punched her in the head, knocked her down, and continued hitting and kicking her until his friends came and removed him away from her. Considering that the event of August 8, 2018, was processed by the Misdemeanor Court in …, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, following Article 36, paragraph 1 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, did not analyze the part of the complaint that refers to the event that was the subject of this court proceeding. During the proceedings, a statement was requested from the person against whom the complaint was filed, but B. B. and V. V. did not give their statements on the allegations of the complaint because they did not accept requests for statement, although they were informed three times by PE “Pošte Srbija” about the dispatch they were to receive. Therefore, the Commissioner was not able to access their statements about the merits of the complaint, so the opinion was made based on the allegations of the complaint and the evidence presented. The complaint and witness statements did not specify that B. B. insulted and humiliated A. A. due to her sexual orientation during the period when she worked in the cafe restaurant “…” in 2017 and 2018. However, the statements of the witnesses confirmed the allegations of the complaint in the part related to the harassment and humiliating treatment by V. V. and her discriminatory treatment due the statement of A. A. about his sexual orientation. Namely, it was stated in the complaint that A. A. conveyed her sexual orientation to V. V. on the same day she went to ask for a job, as well as that B.B. was familiar with her sexual orientation. Furthermore, the witness proposed by the complainant confirmed that V. V. said to A.A. “Why don’t you answer when I call you, lesbian?” and “Is that your girlfriend? Is she a lesbian too?” as well as that in the tone in which V. V. addressed A. A. she sensed malice, ridicule, and irony, and saw on the face of A. A. that she was uncomfortable, while a second proposed witness stated that he was present several times when M. insulted A. A. because she is a lesbian and that it all apparently looked like a joke: “Oh, I always forget that A. is a lesbian”, “Bro, A. has a wife and you don’t,” as well as that V. V. used every opportunity to mention A.A.’s sexual orientation during conversations. Therefore, the Commissioner gave the opinion that it was not established that B. B, the entrepreneur of the cafe restaurant “…” …, violated the provisions of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, while it was established that V. V. violated the provisions of Articles 12 and 21, paragraph 2 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination. Thus, V. V. was recommended to send a written apology to A. A., because she humiliated and insulted her based on her personal characteristic, as well as to take care in the future not to violate the legal regulations on the prohibition of discrimination by her behavior.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY

Brankica Janković