More than six months ago, an activist from the Bolesławiec Women’s Strike was not served at Bricomarche in Bolesławiec. She was not wearing a face mask, although she had a medical certificate confirming contraindications to wearing one. The police she called did not penalize the shop owner. We wrote about it in the article: She was not served at Brico because she did not have a face mask, although she had a certificate. The police not only failed to make the owner serve the customer, but also did not penalize him for it. Although Article 135 of the Petty Offences Code concerns precisely such a situation:
Anyone engaged in selling goods in a retail business or catering establishment who conceals goods intended for sale from a buyer or deliberately refuses to sell such goods without a justified reason is subject to a fine.
Petty Offences Code, Article 135
The police intervention at Dom Chleba on Polna Street in January this year looked completely different. The woman without a face mask is not an activist, but she also had a medical certificate concerning contraindications to wearing a mask. The situation she described was almost identical to the one at Brico in 2021.
“The saleswoman refused to serve me because I was not wearing a face mask. She was so adamant about her decision that the situation ended with a police intervention at my request. Of course, I was in the right, because no seller has the right to refuse service when a customer is not wearing a face mask!”
The police spokesperson confirms that officers informed the shop employee that the customer had a medical certificate concerning contraindications to wearing a face mask, and the customer was served.
Since April 2021, neither the Petty Offences Code nor the right of people with a medical certificate not to cover their mouth and nose with a mask has changed. Why was the police unsuccessful at Bricomarche in enforcing the customer’s right to be served, while it was successful at Dom Chleba? Despite everything, one is led to suspect that it was because the first customer was an activist in the Women’s Strike, while the second was not.
The Women’s Strike activist wrote to us in response to a question about what happened with her notification of a suspected offence by the salesperson, in accordance with what Waldemar Sawicki, the district consumer ombudsman, had suggested. The basis for this action is Article 135 of the Petty Offences Code.
“First, our local police and the prosecutor’s office refused to act because they did not see any offence in it. Then I wrote to the commander in Wrocław, but he replied that I could not file a complaint because I was the injured party. I don’t know what to call this. You don’t know whether to laugh or cry,” the woman replied. The activist added that the police had informed her that she had the right to be served, but that the police could not force the seller to serve the customer.
“When I filed a complaint that the police had neither penalized nor reprimanded the seller for not serving me, three people from the shop were questioned about it: the cashier, the shift manager and the owner. Despite knowing that I had a certificate, they did not serve me, and the police informed me that I could file an application with the court because they did not see any offence in it. That is how the matter ended with the police, and I will have to file a civil lawsuit,” the activist informed us.