Vezi raport EN

e law; ► The criterion introduced in the methodology by art. 21 par. (5) is by no means a measure of discrimination of the petition on the basis of kinship, but on the contrary represents a measure to prevent an imminent situation of conflict of interest from the perspective of art. 10 corroborated with art. 175 C.p. III. 2. N.C.C.D. Abstract of Defence: ► The eventuality of finding irregularities in the administrative-judicial proceed- ings conducted before N.C.C.D. cannot lead to the cancelation of the decision no. 607/28.09.2016, since, before the court of first instance, the complainant, the Ministry of National Education and Scientific Research has the possibility to defend its point of view on the issues he was accused of in the petition, thus respecting both the principle of contradictory and the fundamental principle of the rights of the defence, which is likely to eliminate the alleged harm to the N.C.C.D.; ► Based on the provisions of art. 79 of the Internal Procedure for Solving Petitions and Notices of N.C.C.D. may, by decision adopted, include a non-legally binding guideline in order to prevent breaches of the principle of non-discrimination, so that the issue of a circular to all county school inspectorates for the purposes of the decision does not constitute an excess of power; ► N.C.C.D. has no jurisdiction to rule on the legality and righteousness of O.M.E.C.Ş. no. 5080/2016, which is the task of the courts, but in the case deducted from the judg- ment, N.C.C.D. has analysed this administrative normative act in its capacity of guaran- tor of observing and applying the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment, exclusively through the observance by the issuer of the order of the two principles; ► In the case deducted from the judgment, it is obvious that the situation present- ed in art. 6 from Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 regarding the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination in the sense that the applicant Ministry of National Education and Scientific Research determines the free choice/exercise of the position of director and deputy director of the pre-university educational institutions by prohibiting the relationship of first degree spouses and relatives, conditioning which had an effect on the SCL claimant restriction, removal of recognition, use or exercise on equal terms of the right to work, the right to professional promotion and the right to personal dignity. 30  III. 3. Court Ruling: Bucharest Appeal Court - Section VIII Contentious Administrative and Fiscal Matters – by Civil Ruling no. 1764/16.05.2017 issued in file no. 7004/2/2016, dismissed as unfound- ed the action brought by the applicant Ministry of National Education and Scientific Re- search in contradiction with the defendant National Council for Combating Discrimination and intervener S.C.L. and maintains as lawful and valid the Civil Ruling of N.C.C.D. no. 607/28.09.2016 issued in file no. 628/2016, on the following grounds: ► Through the provisions of art. 21 par. (5) from O.M.E.C.Ş. no. 5080/2016, married or kinship-related persons of first degree with a person with whom they are in manage- ment, guidance or control, at any level, in a pre-university education unit, school in- spectorate, the Teaching Staff House, palaces and clubs for children and pupils, school sports clubs are discriminated against in comparison with those not in this relationship. Therefore, the relationship between spouse and first degree relationship is a clear crite- rion of discrimination. Also, its effect is undoubtedly the restriction of the right to work and professional promotion; ► The mode chosen by the applicant in the M.E.N.C.Ş. as regards the prevention of a conflict of interest, the Court finds that this is neither appropriate nor necessary as long as the Law on National Education has established a single other incompatibility during the period of office of a director or deputy director, of a pre-university education institution, namely that provided by art. 257 par. (4) concerning the appointment of a president or a vice-president of a political party; ► The attainment of the intended purpose can be achieved by methods that can only prevent the effective exercise of control, monitoring and evaluation activity between spouses or close relatives and not the occupation of the posts themselves by the persons in these relationships. Civil Ruling no. 1764/16.05.2017 issued by the Bucharest Court of Appeal - Section VIII Ad- ministrative and Fiscal Contentious Division in file no. 7004/2/2016 remained final through its non-rectification by the Ministry of National Education and Scientific Research. CASE NO. 3 The subject-matter of the case: I. The petition’s considerations: Through the complaint filed with the N.C.C.D. , the petitioner considered that the publica- tion of the articles in the media and on the website of the complainant had impacted person- al dignity. Activity Report 2017 31  II. N.C.C.D. Abstract of Defence/Solution: After analysing all the documentation in the file, the specialized papers (hearings, requests of points of view), the Steering Board of N.C.C.D. by Civil Ruling no. 290/10.05.2017 found that the Acts notified constituted discrimination, according to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 and art. 15 by Government Ordinance no. 137/2000R and sanctioned in the amount of 1000 lei, according to the provisions of art. 26 par. 1 from Government Ordi- nance 137/2000R. III. Request to sue By the application filed at the Court of Appeal of Brasov - the Administrative and Fiscal Appeal Section, the defendant S.C. Profiton S.R.L., in contradiction with the defendants N.C.C.D. and J.T., requested the annulment of the Civil Ruling no 290/10.05.2017 pro- nounced by the Steering board as unlawful and ungrounded. In particular, the complainant mentions that he does not take responsibility for the content of the posts, but points out that allegations that are contrary to law, advertising, obscene, inadequate, as well as defamatory will be erased. IV. N.C.C.D. Abstract of Defence: In reply, the N.C.C.D., through the legal counsel, argued that the complainant›s allegations, which are the subject of the petition, are not protected by art. 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. With regard to the subject-matter of the case, it cannot be isolated that the use of the term “Szekler” is of a discriminatory nature, but the way in which the situation covered by the ar- ticles is presented is capable of retaining a distinction based on ethnicity/nationality, which has the effect of interfering with the right to personal dignity, within the meaning of the provisions of art. 2 paragraph 1 in conjunction with art. 15 from Government Ordinance no. 137/2000, republished. This form of expression promotes hatred based on intolerance and should therefore be sanctioned. Concerning the claim that “the applicant does not assume responsibility for the posts”, it should be noted that the provisions of Art. 12 of the Law no. 365/2002 provide for a waiver of liability for the information society service provider subject to certain conditions. From this perspective, the interpretation given by the CJEU in Case C-291/13, Directive 2000/31/ EC regarding the definition of the service provider, namely information society services and limitation of liability under Articles 12-14 of Directive 2000/31/EC. Thus, the Court has in principle established that “the limitations on civil liability set out in Art. 12 to 14 of Directive 2000/31 do not concern the situation of a publishing company which has a website on which the electronic version of a newspaper is published, on the other hand, paid on the revenue generated by the commercial advertising broadcast on this site, insofar as it is aware of the information it publishes and exercises control of it, 32 regardless of whether the access to the site is free or against cost. “ Moreover, it is apparent from recital 42 in the preamble to Directive 2000/31 that the liabil- ity exemptions provided for in that directive cover only cases in which the activity of the in- formation society service provider is purely technical, automatic and passive, which implies that the supplier does not know or control the information transmitted or stored (see Google France and Google, C-236/08-C-238/08, EU: C: 2010: 159, paragraph 113). In the case before the court, we note that the applicant is not a provider of services of the in- formation society in order to benefit from the provisions of Art. 12 of Law 365/2002, which is in fact the administrator of a web page, perspective from which he has control over the information that appears on the site. Also, in this context, it is irrelevant to mention the denial of any responsibility of the site administrator for the content of the materials to be published, which is not such as to exon- erate the petitioner from liability. In the case of the court, as stated above, the complainant does not have the capacity to sim- ply deliver the information, having the possibility to censor the posts on the site, but has failed to act in this respect. V. Solution of the court of first instance Braşov Court of Appeal - Administrative and Fiscal Litigation Division, by Civil Sentence no. 172/08.11.2017 dismissed the action in administrative litigation formulated by the applicant S.C. Profiton S.R.L. in contradiction with the defendants, the National Council for Combating Discrimination and J. T. having as object the annulment of the Decision no. 290/10.05.2017 pronounced by the defendant National Council for Combating Discrimination. VI. The solution of the appeal court At the time of elaboration of the Report, the case is in the filing procedure before the High Court of Cassation and Justice - the Administrative and Fiscal Court, following the appeal promoted by S.C. Profiton S.R.L. CASE NO. 4 The subject-matter of the case: I. The petition’s considerations: Through the petition filed at N.C.C.D. , the petitioner considered discriminatory the dis- ciplinary dissolution of the employment contract for a pregnant person. It was found that the pregnant petitioner (in the fourth month) was discharged the labour contract for disci- plinary misconduct, without respecting the necessary steps for such a measure. 1 1 See address P11476/53475/CRM/14.09.2016 ITM București Activity Report 2017 33  II. The solution ordered by N.C.C.D. After analysing all the documentation in the file, the specialized papers (hearings, requests of points of view), the Steering Board of N.C.C.D. by decision no. 56/25.01.2017 found that the termination of the pregnant plumber’s employment contract constitutes discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 7 lit. a) from Government Or- dinance no. 137/2000R and sanctioned S.C. Sortec Lux S.R.L. in the amount of 10,000 lei, according to the provisions of art. 26 par. 1 from Government Ordinance 137/2000R. III. Request to sue By the application filed at the Bucharest Court of Appeal - Section VIII Administrative and Fiscal Appeal, filed by S.C. Sortec Lux S.R.L., in contradiction with the defendants N.C.C.D. and G.F., requested the annulment of the decision no. 56/25.01.2017 pronounced by the Steering Board as illegal and ungrounded. In particular, the complainant mentions that the defendant did not notify her that she was pregnant. The applicant claims to have been aware of the defendant’s pregnancy status when handing over the decision to terminate the employment contract when the defendant has produced a certificate showing that she is pregnant during the fourth month. IV. N.C.C.D. abstract of defence In reply, N.C.C.D. argued that a differential treatment was invoked as regards the dissolu- tion of the pregnant woman’s petitioner. Thus, it is remembered that the petitioner was subjected to discriminatory/harassing treat- ment because of her pregnancy status (in the fourth month of pregnancy). The state of pregnancy, according to international treaties in the field (Directive 76/207/ EEC) and domestic law (Law No 2002/20002, GEO 96/2003), is a different situation for women, which must be treated differently compared to other situations, in the sense that, during this time, the salary incomes cannot be changed or the employees’ report/employ- ment contract cannot be changed for any reason. Through this differential treatment/harassment, applied by the employer, the petitioner was subject, on the one hand, to intimidating, hostile, degrading treatment and, on the other hand, to discriminatory treatment. The termination of the labour contract of the pregnant woman is discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1 from Government Ordinance no. 137/2000, being an act of exclusion based on pregnancy/sex2 which had the purpose or effect of restricting the use and exercise on equal terms. Moreover, the petitioner was violated his right to work, the criterion of differ- entiation being his pregnancy/sex. 2 It is stated in the case law of the European Court of Justice that maternity/pregnancy must be classified as „sex”. 34 In accordance with O.U.G. 96/2003, the employer has the obligation to observe the prin- ciple of protection of maternity and the safety of pregnant women or those who have re- sumed their activity after the period of hospitalization, regarding the risks that may affect their health and safety. Maternity status cannot be a reason for discrimination. And by the provisions of art. 10 par. 6 let. A of Law no. 202/2002, the dismissal is forbidden while the employee is pregnant. Referring to the evidence produced by the parties, we note that the allegedly discriminatory party does not submit any evidence to overturn the presumption of the existence of the of- fense as presented by the petitioner, thus failing to oblige the overturning obligation of the burden of proof, according to the provisions of art. 20 par. 6 of Government Ordinance no. 137/2000, republished updated. Although the applicant did not prove that she had informed the employer of her pregnan- cy status, however, given, first, the fact that the pregnant woman’s pregnancy was already visible and, on the other hand, the employment contract, without complying with the legal conditions3, restrains the creation of the presumption of discrimination. In view of all these considerations, it was noted that the differential treatment applied to the complainant without objective and reasonable justification constitutes discrimination as defined by Government Ordinance 137/2000. V. Solution of the court of first instance Bucharest Court of Appeal - Section VIII Administrative and Fiscal Contentious Division, by Civil Sentence no. 2722/29.06.2017 dismissed the administrative appeal filed by the ap- plicant S.C. Sortec Lux S.R.L. in contradiction with the defendants, the National Council for Combating Discrimination and G.F. APPLICATION for the cancelation of the Decision no. 56/25.01.2017, adopted by the defendant National Council for Combating Discrimination. VI. The solution of the appeal court At the time of elaboration of the Report, the case is in the filing procedure before the High Court of Cassation and Justice - the Administrative and Fiscal Court, following the appeal promoted by S.C. Sortec Lux S.R.L. 3 By address P11476 / 53475 / CRM / 14.09.2016, ITM Bucharest noted that „For your dismissal under the provisions of Art. 61 lit. 1 of the Labor Code, the employer did not prove the observance of the pro- visions of art. 247-252 of the Law no. 53/2003, Labor Code, republished, with subsequent amendments and completions.” Activity Report 2017 35 Report on the activity of the Inspection Service in 2017 Pursuant to the provisions of Art. 41 par. (1) of the internal Procedure for solving petitions and referrals, “the file owner disposes upon investigating, if case, after studying the petition and proofs submitted”. Therefore, the file under investigation, accompanied by the reso- lution of the file owner, is sent to the Inspection Service within the Legal Department in view of checking some unclear aspects and collecting data, witness statements and evidence necessary for solving the situation. After the control, the investigation team writes a report accompanied by the documentation resulting from the control. Statistical data on files investigated by the Inspection Service in 2017 In 2017, the Steering board submitted 30 files to the Inspection Service. In view of observing the resolutions of file owners and achieving the control objectives, 39 investigations were conducted (some files required several trips), out of which 24 in Bucharest and Ilfov coun- ty, 3 in the North-West Region (2 in Cluj county), 2 in the South-East Region (2 in Vrancea county, 1 in Galaţi county, 1 in Buzau county, and 1 in Constanţa county), 1 in the Munte- nia-South Region (1 in Dâmboviţa county and 1 in Giurgiu county), 1 in the North-East Re- gion (1 in Iaşi county), 1 in the West Region (Hunedoara county), in the Oltenia South-West Region (1 in Dolj county, 1 in Gorj county) and 2 in the Centre Region ( 2 in Sibiu county). Out of the 30 verified files, in 26 (84% of the total) of them the alleged fact of discrimination took place in urban areas and the rest of 5 (16%