No. 07-00-00336/2017-02  Date: 29  December  2017

OPINION

The present opinion was issued following a complaint procedure lodged upon a complaint filed by A.D. from Š. against “M.” Ltd. from N.S. on account of late delivery of goods purchased by A.D. at a super store retail facility of “R.” in Š. for the needs of the OSCE Mission to Serbia “ . . . “ project. In her complaint, the complainant stated, inter alia, that A.D. had made a payment by invoice to the account of “M.” Ltd. from N.S. on Friday, . . . . . ,   electronically, and that the goods were collected on Monday, . . . . ., namely three days after the payment had been made. The complainant felt that the delay in the delivery of goods was caused by the fact that the purchase had been made for the needs of an LGBT related project. In the course of the complaint procedure, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality has secured declaration of “M.” Ltd. from N.S. responding to allegations made in the complaint, stating that the goods were not collected by client A.D. on the same day when the payment had been made as the payment was made on Friday, . . . . . 2017, at 20:58, i.e. on the last working day of the week for the Central Branch Office of “M.” Ltd. from N.S. and after working hours of employees working in the main administrative building, in keeping with the Decision on Working Hours. The slip confirming that the payment had been processed could have been obtained either by the end of the day when the payment had been made or the following working day, which in this particular case, meant Monday, . . . . . In addition, the payment was made by money transfer which means that the collection of goods is possible only after receiving confirmation that the paid sum has been transferred to the account. In their declaration responding to allegations made by the complainant, the defendant clarified the payment by invoice procedure stating that in order to hand over the goods to the client, the vendor must receive a record of payment resulting from money transfer made from the buyer’s account to the vendor’s account, lacking which it would be a deferred payment purchase which implies signing of a contract in written form, which was not the case in this instance. The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality has analyzed only facts of consequence for ascertaining discrimination, but not those pertaining to other possible omissions in operation of or treatment by “M.” Ltd. from N.S. which fall within the scope of competence of other government authorities. Taking into consideration submissions in the complaint and the declaration and in keeping with the provisions of Article 2 Paragraph 1 of the Law on Payments by Legal Persons, Entrepreneurs and Private Persons not Involved in Business Activities, Article 35 of the Law on Payment Services and Articles 454 and 475 of the Law on Contract and Torts, it has been ascertained that the reasons for delaying the delivery of goods were objective and justified and were not related to any real or presumed personal characteristic of the complainant. For this reason the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality issued its opinion following a complaint procedure lodged upon a complaint filed by A.D. from Š. against “M.” Ltd. from N.S., finding that the provisions of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination have not been violated. However, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality is of the opinion that “M.” Ltd. as a store chain with a formidable tradition and a wide network of stores, which conducts its business activities with a large number of legal and private persons, should adopt a Code of Equality, so as to inform its employees about the equality principle.