Home / Comments and Opinions / Punished for Delivering Goods to a Parking Lot

Punished for Delivering Goods to a Parking Lot

Punished for Delivering Goods to a Parking Lot

I read a somewhat strange story on a portal about an OPG owner who was punished for selling his goods in a parking lot. He sold them from a van, although he claims he was delivering them as already ordered. In my opinion, if what is written is true, he should not have been punished, at least not immediately. However, his experience can help other OPG owners.

On the portal Legalis.hr, he published his story. In it, he writes that he offers products from his OPG and, as he states, sells them through advertisements on Facebook. Customers order them either by phone or send him messages about how much of what they are ordering. As soon as he has a delivery, I assume he is a vegetable and/or fruit producer, but that is not so important. What is important for this story is that he has problems delivering his ordered products because he does it in a parking lot. Because of this, he states that he is constantly reported by a person (it will turn out to be the owner of a nearby store) who believes that the OPG owner is selling outside the market space. He claims that he does not sell in the parking lot, but only delivers the ordered goods, and that he stays there for about an hour until the customers pick them up.

The Regulation is More Precise

One day an inspector came, checked the condition of the goods in the van, and made a list. A month later, the OPG owner received a fine of 800 euros for selling outside the market space, and he was also deprived of a financial benefit amounting to 120 euros from those goods. I assume the inspector assessed the value of the goods to arrive at that 120 euros. The OPG owner appealed this decision, but it was rejected, so he is now seeking advice on what to do. There are currently no advice on the mentioned portal, but I searched a bit to understand whether he has the right to deliver goods and where. On the Ministry of Agriculture’s website, I found where and how OPGs are allowed to sell their agricultural products. Among other things, it is stated that they can sell remotely, through advertisements in the media with delivery to the consumer. Our OPG owner, as he stated, sells his goods via Facebook, which means he is not wrong in that respect. Although I do not doubt that he brought already sold goods to the parking lot, I fear he made a mistake in choosing the location. Namely, as stated on the Ministry of Agriculture’s website, he can sell by advertising in the media, but with delivery to the consumer. However, the Ministry did not specify where to deliver the goods to the consumer, at home or for the customer to pick them up in the parking lot (or another public place), but the Regulation on the Sale of Own Agricultural Products Produced on Family Farms is somewhat more precise. In Article 4, Paragraph 2, Point 6, it states that OPGs can sell their own agricultural products at retail outside the store through mobile (ambulant) sales (which also requires a permit) and delivery to the consumer. I say the Regulation is more precise because it states ‘delivery to the consumer’, meaning to the home address, unlike the informative website of the Ministry of Agriculture which states ‘with delivery to the consumer’, which can indeed be interpreted that the goods can be delivered to the consumer at another location, not just at their address.

Warning Before Punishment

Thus, the Regulation has said it all, and that is why I fear that our OPG owner has no choice but to come to terms with the fact that he has lost hard-earned money. However, this does not mean that the inspector’s procedure should not be criticized, as he could have told the OPG owner that he cannot park the van in the parking lot for customers to come for the goods, but that he is obliged to go to their addresses. He should have just issued a warning, considering that small farmers, just like other small entrepreneurs, do not have time to read a pile of regulations. Had he warned him, the OPG owner would no longer have an excuse for not knowing about that regulation, and if he parked in the parking lot again, the inspector would have every right, even morally, to impose the maximum possible fine on him.

POST SCRIPTUM

Shortly after the last ‘Justice’ was published, titled ‘Instead of Compensation on Her Land, She Received an Unclassified Road’, a reader from Istria contacted me, telling me that the decision of the city fathers of Trogir is not an isolated case, but that decisions about unclassified roads are a fig leaf for what is really happening – expropriation of land without compensation. Unfortunately, she says, this is the rule in Croatia. She promised to send me documentation related to some cases. A reader from the Primorje-Gorski Kotar County also contacted me, wishing to tell his story. I must admit that I am quite unpleasantly surprised because I thought these were just a few cases created by local sheriffs.

Tagged: