No. 07-00-266/2017-02  Date: 1 November 2017

OPINION

The present opinion was issued following a complaint procedure initiated upon a complaint lodged by Lj.P. from S. against M.O.O.G.N., Š.N. and S.L. In his complaint, the complainant stated that he had been prevented from taking part in the assembly session of that organization as a candidate since he was 60 plus years old and that Š.N. and S.L. had insulted him on account of his age. In keeping with the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination a declaration on allegations made by the complainant were requested from M.O.O.G.N. which had received the request but has not submitted its declaration on allegations made by the complainant within the statutory deadline. In his declaration on allegations made by the complainant, S.L. stated that during the mentioned assembly session he had proposed not to elect persons who had previously been elected to the management and that he had not insulted nor discriminated against Lj.P. With respect to the allegations claiming that Š.N. had committed an act of discrimination, in the course of the complaint procedure it has been ascertained that no proof has been submitted that would make it safe to assume that there was a link between Lj.P.’s personal characteristic and acts of Š.N. Bearing in mind the fact that the complainant filed a complaint against M.O.O.G.N. too, which failed to submit its declaration on allegations contained in the complaint within legally prescribed period of time, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality has obtained from the Business Registers Agency a photocopy of the organization’s Statute which sets down rules governing the election of members to this organization’s management bodies. Based on the analysis of the Minutes of the Assembly session, organization’s Statute and witness accounts, it has been ascertained that some persons who were members of management bodies of M.O.O.G.N. organization, were indeed 60 plus years of age. It has also been ascertained that there was no such rule limiting older persons from being members of management bodies of this organization, in particular as the complainant himself had indicated this fact, which leads to the conclusion that M.O.O.G.N. organization had not discriminated against persons who were 60 plus years old and that S.L. had not violated provisions of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination with the statement he had made during M.O.O.G.N. assembly session, which does not mean that other rights outside the Commissioner’s scope of competence had not been violated. Hence, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality has issued an opinion stating that in the course of the complaint procedure initiated upon a complaint lodged by Lj.P., it has been ascertained that no violation of provisions of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination had been perpetrated by S.L. and by M.O.O.G.N.