No. 07-00-233/2017-02 Date: 22 September 2017
OPINION
The present opinion was issued following a complaint procedure initiated upon a complaint lodged by C.S.Ž.O.I. from B. against a bank . . . (branch office No. . . . . in N.B.) on account of discrimination on the grounds of disability as a personal characteristic. In its complaint, the complainant stated that the entrance to this Bank’s branch office . . . was not accessible for persons with disability using a wheelchair, for other persons with mobility problems but also for parents with children in strollers. In its declaration responding to allegations contained in the complaint, the Bank . . . stated, inter alia, that it leases office space where Bank’s branch office No. . . is located from Emergency Shelters Public Enterprise and that it had not sought consent from the lessor for installing the entrance access ramp since an association of citizens had already sought such consent. Emergency Shelters Public Enterprise had responded to such request for consent stating that it was not the beneficiary of the land lot where such access ramp would be installed. In addition, in its declaration the Bank . . . also stated that it had no knowledge of who the owner or the beneficiary of this land lot where this access ramp would be installed was, stating that only such owner or beneficiary would be legally entitled to issue the consent necessary for installing the access ramp. However, the Bank . . . stated that it had decided to launch activities geared towards identifying the owner or beneficiary of the land lot and that, once the owner or the beneficiary of the land lot has been identified, it would pursue activities aimed at reaching an agreement with the owner or beneficiary towards obtaining all the necessary permits and documentation from competent authorities needed for installing the access ramp. In the course of the complaint procedure it has been ascertained that the entrance to the Bank . . (Branch Office No. . . . in N.B.) was inaccessible to persons with disabilities and other persons with mobility problems, making services of this Bank inaccessible to persons with disabilities. In addition, it has been ascertained that, prior to receiving the request from the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality seeking their declaration regarding allegations made by the complainant, the Bank had not undertaken any activities aimed at ensuring accessibility of its services to persons with disabilities and other persons with mobility problems, and that prior to the issuing of the present Opinion, it had failed to provide accessibility of its facilities and services to persons with disabilities. For this reason, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality has issued its Opinion stating that the Branch Office No. . . . of the Bank . . . located at . . . . . Street in N.B. was not accessible to persons with disabilities and other persons with mobility problems, which represents a violation of provisions of Articles 6, 17 and 26 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination in relation to provisions of Articles 13 and 16 of the Law on the Prevention of Discrimination of Persons with Disabilities, and issued a recommendation to the Bank . . . to continue pursuing activities aimed at ensuring accessibility of its Bank . . . premises (Branch Office No. . . . in N. B.) so as to make their facilities accessible to persons with disabilities and to other persons with mobility problems as well as to ensure accessibility of their services to persons with disabilities.
COMMISSIONER FOR THE
PROTECTION OF EQUALITY
Brankica Janković
