Vezi raport EN

) in rural areas. In 24 files (69%), the defen- dant was a legal entity, and in 11 (31%) the defendant was an individual. Some files had both legal entities and individuals as defendants. In what concerns the discrimination criteria, the situation of files investigated is as follows: ethnic origin 8 (22%), disability 6 (16%), nationality 2 (6%), sexual orientation 1 (3%), age 3 (8%), political beliefs 2 (6%), no criteria 2 (6%), - (one of the files had two criteria). Report on the 2016 activity of the Territorial Department Structures MUREȘ TERRITORIAL OFFICE Between January and November 2017, 74 hearings were granted to people interested by the N.C.C.D. activity at the level of Mureș Territorial Office. Criteria and fields upon which the N.C.C.D. territorial representative provided expert legal counsel: language, ethnicity, disability, non contagious chronic disease , age, religion, be- longing to a disadvantaged category, others. 36 In 2017, at the level of the Mureş Territorial Structure, 29 petitions received were regarding potential acts of discrimination, which were then sent to the Steering Board of N.C.C.D. . The activity of collaboration with the public authorities, with legal and natural persons to ensure the prevention and elimination of all forms of discrimination, namely the promotion of N.C.C.D. at a local level, was realized through various participations in meetings, confer- ences, seminars organized in collaboration with local public authorities and legal persons in the field of human rights in Mures County. BUZĂU TERRITORIAL OFFICE In 2017, at the level of Buzau Territorial Structure, special hearings were given to 104 per- sons, showing a threefold increase compared to the previous year. The criteria and fields that were the subject of the activity of providing specialized legal counsel were: ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, equality in economic activity and em- ployment. Also, a special audience was given in 10 active N.C.C.D. cases. In 2017, at the level of the Mureş Territorial Structure, 5 petitions received were regard- ing potential acts of discrimination, which were later submitted to the N.C.C.D. ‘s Steering board. Among the activities to prevent the phenomenon of discrimination are the visits to pro- mote the principle of non-discrimination at the level of several City Hall in Buzău County, especially in the localities where there are a significant number of Roma citizens (Verneşti, Calvini, Rm Sarat). Also, the representative of the Buzau Territorial Structure participated in all the actions of the Buzau County Council on Equal Opportunities, as well as at the meetings of the respec- tive commission within the County Council. At the same time, a partnership with the County School Inspectorate was carried out through which an information program on anti-discrimination legislation will be carried out. Also in this context, a program of work with the school units in Buzău County was established, with the purpose of resuming the campaign called “What label do you wear?” Activity Report 2017 37 Student internships in 2017 Over the year 2017, the Legal Department - Legal, Administrative Law and Contracts Of- fice, together with the Programs and International Affairs Direction within the Romanian National Council for Combating Discrimination provided internships for students of the fol- lowing higher education institutions: Law Faculty, Political Sciences Faculty within Bucha- rest University, Legal and Administrative Sciences Faculty - “Dimitrie Cantemir” Christian University of Bucharest, University Titu Maiorescu – Faculty of Law. As part of this activity, the internship tutors from within the N.C.C.D. Legal Department provided students with information on discrimination, discrimination types, the Romanian national anti-discrimination council’s organization and rules of functioning, responsibilities, petition resolution process, penalties, programs organized in view of preventing and fighting discrimination, as well as the procedure for appealing N.C.C.D. decisions in court. Students participating in the internship were offered the possibility to take part in the court meetings, together with the N.C.C.D. legal counsel, in trials on appealing N.C.C.D. decisions. The internship also included practical exercises so that students acknowledge negative effects of discrimination on people. Students who chose to broaden their knowledge on the functioning of discrimination prevention and fighting mechanisms were delighted to discover, with the help of the counsel within the Programs and Internation- al Relations Division, responsible for internships, the cleverness and creativity of the prevention methods. Thus, after a psychological and sociological incursion in the field in order to define and de- scribe the way discrimination works, basic concepts and their limits were examined - toler- ance, human rights, equity, affirmative policies, rituals, traditions, freedom of speech, equal opportunities, freedom of speech, diversity - noting both the complexity and possible chang- es of the sense of the discrimination concept in the globalization millennium. Several video documentaries were played in which the characters were part of vulnerable groups. Students were particularly attracted to the role of personal attitude in preventing discrimination, to the attitude sources of discrimination and by discrimination effects. Role plays also helped them experience solidarity (as a positive effect of discrimination), get aware of the reasons of being educated, have common sense and good taste, as well as the need to act responsibly when facing the vicious circle of discrimination - the discrimination that leads to discrimi- nation. Upon the end of the internship, participants received internship certificates from the N.C.C.D. attesting their interest in the field, institution and tutor teachings, the fact that they studied all necessary material and requested information they needed to help them grasping the complexity of the discrimination combat phenomenon. 38  Examples of the Council Steering board’s case laws 1. Equity in economic activities, employment and profession The petitioner indicates that the complainant company and the representative union nego- tiated an Article (Article 97) in the Collective Labour Agreement (CCM) 2015-2016, contrary to the sanctions of N.C.C.D. and the provisions of the court decision that render them con- ditional on the employers’ initiative or the representative union in order to be able to enjoy the right to negotiate the employment contract. ► The petitioner calls into question the decision no. 342/2015, whereby the National Council for Combating Discrimination found the facts of discrimination against the mem- bers of the petitioner union. ► it did not comply with the legal provisions, which is why, while negotiation re- quests are being formulated, the employers’ association and the representative union condi- tion the right of their “initiative”. ► the article complained of provides as follows: “Negotiation of individual labour contracts is necessarily triggered by the initiative of one of the parties to the Collective Bar- gaining Agreement”. ► Thus, the membership of other uninvited union organizations makes the employ- ers condition this only if there is “initiative” on the part of the “signatory parties” of the CCM. The governing council of the National Council for Combating Discrimination (N.C.C.D. ) finds that the petitioner is conditioned by the patronage initiative and the representative union regarding the right to negotiate the labour contract (Article 97 of the CCM 2015-2016). Rights granted by the employer only to the representative union under the Collective Bar- gaining Agreement should be extended to unrepresentative trade unions under the terms of the Social Dialogue Law. Article 97 of the CCM provides that “Negotiation of individual la- bour contracts is necessarily triggered by the initiative of one of the parties to the Collective Bargaining Agreement.” In this sense, the membership of other non-obedient trade unions makes the employer conditional on this only if there is an “initiative” from the CCM “signa- tory parties”. The Steering board notes that the CCM signatories are the employer and the representative union. Favouring the representative union in a number of areas, granting rights is discriminatory as it is a distinction, exclusion, preference on the basis of trade union membership, which has the effect of restricting the trade union rights and those stipulated in the Collective La- bour Agreement. Regarding the aspects discussed above, the Steering board, through the unanimous votes of the members present at the meeting, finds that the conditions of the direct discrimination deed provided by art. 2, paragraph 1, corroborated with the provisions of art. 7 lit. f) from OG no.137 / 2000, republished and decides to sanction the employer (S.N. Mihail Kogălniceanu Activity Report 2017 41 International Airport - Constanţa S.A.) with a fine of 5,000 lei, by virtue of art. 26 par. 1 by GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE no. 137/2000, taking into account the following aspects: ► discrimination was targeted at a group of people; ► discrimination is likely to affect the independent activity of unrepresentative trade unions and create a monopoly for only one representative trade union; ► the first claimant has the status of employer, who has clear obligations towards the employees and their representatives. The Steering board obliges the first respondent to publish the summary of this judgment, with the exclusion of personal data, in a national circulation newspaper. In view of the above, under Art. 20 par. (2) from Government Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination, with the subsequent amend- ments, with the unanimity of the votes of the members present at the meeting, the Steering board decides: 1. Favouring the representative union in a number of areas, granting rights is discriminatory according to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 7 lit. f) from Government Ordinance no. 137/2000; 2. Apply the fine of 5,000 lei to S.N. Mihail Kogalniceanu International Airport - Constanta S.A., Tudor Vladimirescu Street no. 4, Mihail Kogalniceanu nr. 4, Constaţa County, J13 / 2498/1998, Tax identification no. RO11212645 according to art. 26 par. 1 by Government Ordinance no. 137/2000; 3. Obligates the first person to publish the summary of the present judgment, excluding per- sonal data, in a national circulation newspaper according to Art. 26 par. 2 of Government Ordinance no. 137/2000. 2. Ethnic origin (Roma). Access to services The petitioner claims that on March 23, 2016, he entered the premises of the complainant to buy a cake for the minor accompanied by his 3-year-old grandson. He mentions that he was not served because the person employed there told him that the confectioner’s patron (the second party complained) banned serving the Roma. The Steering Board of the National Council for Combating Discrimination (CNC.D.), re- garding the first head of claim, finds that the internal regulation of the claimed company is discriminatory. As regards the second head of claim, the Steering board finds that the applicant was refused access to the services provided by the claimant, on the basis of his membership to the Roma people. The Steering board acknowledges that the representative of the complainant company ad- mitted that the Internal Regulations are very demanding and that the products can only be served on the premises if there is a minimum consumption of 300 lei/person. It is also noted that this regulation was imposed as a result of numerous scandals involving Roma people in the city. 42 The Steering board finds that, through the provisions of the Regulation, the criterion of selecting the clients contained in art. 1 “... the management of the company has decided to serve in the local consumption of at least 300 lei ...” disadvantages certain persons, com- pared to other persons, without objective justification. The imposition of the requirement of a minimum consumption of 300 lei / person in order to be able to consume the products in the confectionery is indirect discrimination, the party complained of treating different per- sons who do not benefit from this amount, in contradiction with the legislation in the field. The minimum amount included in the regulation is not objectively justified in relation to the standard of living of the Romanian society. It is notorious that food prices are high com- pared to the standard of living, which is half that of the countries of Europe. The Steering board also takes the view that the imposition of the above-mentioned requirement discour- ages any person who does not benefit from that amount from using the services provided by the confectionery claimant in the present case on an equal basis. To analyse this claim, it was noted that there were numerous witness statements confirming the petitioner’s claims, namely that Roma are not allowed to consume cakes in the confec- tionery. In this regard, the Steering board finds that the complainant has shown a behaviour that has led to the creation of an intimidating framework for the petitioner and the Roma, violating the right to dignity and the right to access, on an equal footing, services provided by provid- ers. These facts constitute discrimination according to the provisions of art. 2 paragraph 1, art. 10 lit. f) and art. 15 from Government Ordinance no. 137/2000, republished. The Steering board decides: 1. Failed by the first request for referral, regarding the criterion imposed in art. 1 of the Internal Regulations “... the management of the company decided to serve in the local con- sumption of at least 300 lei ...” The Steering board finds that the facts constitute discrimi- nation, according to the provisions of art. 2 paragraph 3 and art. 10 lit. f) from Government Ordinance no. 137/2000, republished, and decides to sanction the complained party S.C. Bal 99 Prod S.R.L., by a representative, with a fine of 2.000 lei, according to art. 26 from Government Ordinance no. 137/2000. 2. As regards the second head of claim, relating to the manifestation of conduct which has led to the creation of an intimidating framework for the petitioner and the Roma, vio- lating the right to dignity and the right to access, on equal terms, the services provided by the Providers, the Steering board finds that the facts represent discrimination according to the provisions of art. 2 paragraph 1, art. 10 lit. f) and art. 15 from Government Ordinance no. 137/2000, republished, and decides to sanction the complained party S.C. Bal 99 Prod S.R.L., by a representative, with a fine of 2.000 lei, according to art. 26 from Government Ordinance no. 137/2000. Activity Report 2017 43  3. Nationality. Right to personal dignity The petitioner makes a referral on Banciu’s World, broadcast on B1 TV, on December 2, 2015 at 23.00. Within the show, the producer Radu Banciu discussed the news about the attempted terrorist attack in Târgu Secuiesc. During the show, the filmmaker made a series of statements about the Hungarian minority as a whole. In this respect, the most important statements of the issue are reproduced: Minutes 5:04 “Well, Madam, sure that the Hungarians do not have a very beautiful face, I have seen them too, it looks terrible. They look like those Hungarians “cheeks” from our youth, their chin beaten that. The Hungarians are horrible in general as men. Sure, we’re not talking about their women now, that discussion is different. “ Minutes 17:23 “The Hungarian is indeed an avenger from birth, I know them, I know them. Since birth, they have revenge in their genes. They’re built like that, they’re all raised the same way. There isn’t a single Hungarian in this world that does not denigrate or chal- lenge the Trianon treaty. Although they do not know in detail what happened there because they are not very-read or cognizant guys or ... I only know a history of theirs as they see it. They do not know in detail what happened there, they do not know about the treaties. But obviously, they know their consequences; they know the titles, that’s good. They were all raised like this. Regardless of what kind of people they are, they are grooms, they are grocers, they are university professors, they are aircraft pilots or astronauts or crocodile eaters, all the Hungarian citizens in the world contest the Trianon decision. There is no Hungarian on the Earth’s surface to agree with this decision. They have it in their genes. Since they are born, they are built, yes, and they are told these things. This phenomenon is amplified. Everyone, absolutely everyone, is the same. So, with the Hungarians, the ques- tion of generalization is a huge mistake. They are all the same. Any other nation makes compromises. As the French say, put some water in the wine. Never the Hungarian. There is no Hungarian man or woman, therefore no Hungarian citizen on this planet considers Trianon to be right. They do not exist. Well, any other nation in the world has at least one individual (...) there are some who do not see things that way. They are indeed like a herd of sheep ... From this point of view - attention - all the Hungarian citizens in the world are the enemies of Romania. No discussion. Do not come to tell me that this is not the case. All citizens dispute this treaty through which Hungary lost Transylvania. “ Minutes 22:27 “So, they were proud of being Hungarian