\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The present opinion was issued following a complaint procedure lodged by D.M., a Republic of Croatia national, residing in P., against Telekom Srbija a.d. Beograd. In her complaint the complainant claimed that she was denied access to a Telekom Srbija branch office, reasoning being that according to a Telekom Rulebook, foreign nationals were unable to enter the building without previous approval of the General Manager or a person authorized by him. In its declaration and annex to the declaration, Telekom Srbija stated that this company has adopted a Controlled Access Procedure for Foreign Nationals as Business Visitors, that the facility D.M. wished to access was a facility of particular significance for telecommunications and security and as such was provided with physical protection. Furthermore, Telekom Srbija underlined that the aforementioned Procedure is not aimed at denying or limiting access to foreign nationals to Telekom Srbija facilities, but rather at establishing foreign nationals visitation procedures for employees and organizational units to follow. In addition, Telekom Srbija stressed that its Instructions for Access and Visits of Business Partners to its facilities and business premises envisages a special procedure for entry to restricted access facilities for Republic of Serbia nationals as well. Namely, an employee who has invited a Serbian national for a visit must make a written request which is subject to approval of the Logistics Directorate Managing Director or a manager authorized by him. In the course of the complaint procedure, it has been ascertained that these two legal documents envisage a similar Telekom Srbija restricted access facilities procedure for Serbian and foreign nationals alike, i.e. prior to the visit an employee who has invited them must secure a written approval issued by the authorized manager. The analysis of these procedures showed that the difference consists in the position of the manager issuing approval for facility access, and this difference in no way affects the visitor, however it does affect an employee who is in charge of seeing the visit through. Hence, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality issued an opinion stating that Telekom Srbija a.d. Beograd had not committed an act of discrimination against the complainant on the grounds of her personal characteristic \u2013 citizenship.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
![\"microsoft-word-icon\"](\"https:\/\/ravnopravnost.gov.rs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/microsoft-word-icon.png\"){kind=icon}
\u00a0 Complaint filed by D.M., a Republic of Croatia national, residing in P., against Telekom Srbija a.d. Beograd alleging discrimination on the grounds of national affililation<\/strong> ![\"\u041f\u0440\u0435\u0443\u0437\u043c\u0438\"](\"https:\/\/ravnopravnost.gov.rs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/download-icon.png\" "\\"\u041f\u0440\u0435\u0443\u0437\u043c\u0438\u0442\u0435"){kind=icon}
<\/a><\/p>\n