Vezi raport EN

. They felt almost avenged only for this attempt. Of course, many Hungarians have never formulated such a thing in pub- lic, but they all thought it. Know that there is no greater joy for a Hungarian ethnic, and for a Hungarian in Australia, Mexico, Ciudad de Mexico, Santiago de Chile, wherever you want ... in Beijing ... there is no greater joy for a Hungarian than to hear that some Ro- manians were killed in Transylvania by a Hungarian. There is no joy (greater, our note), even if they do not formulate it. In their own right they would like things to evolve like this every day. Yes?” Minutes 23:30 “They detest the French, obviously being a Latin nation. Hungarians hate everything Latin. Hating us, they hate all the Latin countries. This is their leitmotif. They are only on the side of the Anglo Saxon countries, the Slavic countries, less, finally ... They are with the Germans, with these ... with the English ... with the Latin, they viscerally hate 44 all of them. So, any Hungarian hates a Frenchman, that’s obvious. When they heard that they were blown up, the concert hall, and that people were killed, they said ... No, they did applaud, but they did not feel bad, you know. They, as a nation, no, they do not condemn such a thing ...” The aforementioned statements represent national-chauvinist propaganda and incitement to national hatred. He thinks that dignity has been affected and a hostile, degrading, hu- miliating and offensive environment has been created against the Hungarian minority in Romania. The Steering board decides: 1. Finding the existence of differential, discriminatory treatment on the grounds of nation- ality, according to art. 2 par. 1 and of art. 15 from Government Ordinance 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination, republished (unanimity of votes), 2. Penalty of the defendant with a fine of 5,000 lei, for the deeds stipulated in art. 2 par. 1 and art. 15 by Government Ordinance 137/2000, republished, according to art. 26 par. 1 of Government Ordinance 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrim- ination, republished (8 votes in favour, 1 opposed); 4. Gender. Freedom of speech During July 2017, an ad was published on the website www.roabadepromotii.ro with the following message: “DOES YOUR MAN BEAT YOU TWICE A DAY? CHANGE THE MAKE- UP!“. The message promoted a fictitious product according to the party complained of, called “MAKEUP PUGILISTA”. In addressing this issue, the Steering Board is called upon to determine whether the adver- tising message exceeds the limits of freedom of speech and affects the criteria of sex with regard to respect for human dignity and the image of a group of people. In this respect, the Steering Board finds that the activity of advertising some products or services is an approach that pursues a legitimate purpose in society, promoting them for the purpose of selling them. Although in its defence, the claimant claims that the advertising message is fictitious because it promotes a non-existent product, the way and the platform on which the message is transmitted easily mislead receptors, the target group. Thus, the platform on which the message was sent is intended solely for the sale of products and ser- vices. The content of the message was built on a strong reality within the society: the high degree of domestic violence in Romania. The message contains an element of diminishing the im- portance of the topic of domestic violence against women in Romania, creating a degrading, humiliating atmosphere for women who are victims of domestic violence. The way in which the advertising message was conceived and communicated has damaged the human dignity of women who are victims of domestic violence and has affected the im- age of this group of people by degrading and humiliating them only in order to attract views for the website through the message concerned. Activity Report 2017 45  The Steering board decides: 1. Sanctioning the owner of the website on which the advertising message, subject of this complaint, was placed, with a fine of 5,000 lei for violating art. 19 of Law no. 202/2002 and art. 15 from G.O. 137/2000; 2. Obligating the complainant to publish this judgment on the relevant website within 30 days and for a period of 30 days. 5. Disfavoured category (candidate height). The right to education The petitioner considers that it is discriminatory to impose a 1,70 m height for men (i.e. 1,65 m for women) to take part in the recruitment competition through an external source, taking into account the provisions of M.I.A. order no. 140/2016 on the human resource manage- ment activity in the police units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Thus, the Steering board decides that the provisions of art. 7 par. (4) lit. a), corroborated with art. 6 par. (4) lit. a) of Annex no. 2 to the M.I.A.. order no. 140/2016 on the legal con- ditions and specific criteria for the recruitment of candidates, as regards the condition of height (minimum 1,70 m for men and 1,65 m for women) represents discrimination accord- ing to art. 2 par. 3 in conjunction with art. 7 lit. a) from G.O. no. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination, republished. With respect to punishing the act of discrimination according to art. 2 par. 3, corroborated with art. 7 lit. a) from G.O. no. 137/2000 republished, the Steering board notes that the pro- visions of the M.I.A. order no. 140/2016 on the legal conditions and specific criteria for the recruitment of candidates regarding the condition of height (minimum 1,70 m for men and 1,65 m for women) were also analysed by the decision no. 147 / 01.03.2017. The Steering Board took note of both the reasoning underlying the judgment no. 147 / 01.03.2017, as well as the fact that the act of discrimination has already been sanctioned ac- cording to art. 26 par. 1 by G.O. 137/2000, republished, with a fine of 3000 lei, for which in this case a recommendation has been issued to the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the sense of ensuring equality of employment and profession. The Steering board decides: 1. The finding of the act of discrimination provided by art. 2 par. 3 and art. 7 let. a) from G.O. no. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination, republished. 2. Recommends the Ministry of Internal Affairs to ensure equality in employment and oc- cupation. 3. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the parties. 46  6. Ethnic origin, the right to personal dignity The petitioners complain about the discrimination they have suffered in the public space through various Facebook posts as well as in their home town, following an earlier conflict with the petitioner who allegedly verbally offended and threatened them (“smelly gypsies”), had an obscene behaviour towards them, which is why they filed criminal complaints against him from August to October 2016, complaints that have not been resolved before the peti- tion. On 21 October 2016 there was another conflict between the parties to the mutual filling of complaints to the municipal police. The petitioners stated that only the complainant’s com- plaint against them for threats and the disturbance of public peace was taken into account, as a result of which they were detained, with a proposal for preventive arrest. The petitioners appreciate that the measures taken against them constitute an abuse, the urgency with which the detention procedure was carried out showing that the police acted as a result of the complainant’s pressure, given that their complaints had not been resolved but they reacted promptly to the complainant’s complaint on which even the head of the police said he would take care “to hit hard”, according to the petitioners. After their preventive arrest, the petitioners point out that social networking posts have emerged, suggesting that a synchronized action has taken place, as exemplified by a “task done” posting by Pal Ede. Also, complainants submit to CNND the petitioner’s posts on the social network: ►23.11.2016 - For my birthday I feel like eating gipsy steak… half of plate of older meat...it doesn’t matter if it’s hard to chew. The other plate should be made of fresh meat but not to OILY”; ►23.11.2016 -”...he is waiting for all the gypsies in this city who upset me... or be- have similarly”. ►22.11.2016 – distribution of a photograph titled “alternative therapies for the pain in the back of the Romanian political class - ACURPUNCTURA - Dr. Vlad Ţepeş” The petitioners also state that a public safety march was organized by a person supported by local authorities because they did not want their preventive arrest. Thus, they believe that people who have racial hatred and instigate by their acts of hatred and discrimination have been supported. In view of the nature of the statements made publicly by social networking posts, the fact that the allegations under consideration were aimed at violating the dignity of the petition- ers, even the Roma community through the means of expression, the Steering Board consid- ers that a fine should be imposed in the amount of 2000 lei against the complainant. At the same time, the Steering Board has the obligation to publish the summary of this decision in the local press as well as at the level of the Mayor’s office in Odorheiu Secuiesc, respecting the confidential data (personal identification data of the petitioners). Also, the Steering Board decides to send a copy of this decision to the Odorheiu Secuiesc Mayor’s Office, the Odorheiu Secuiesc Local Police and the Harghita Prefect Institution. Activity Report 2017 47  7. Disabilities. Access to public places The Steering board takes into consideration the fact that the applicant, a person with dis- abilities, complains about the lack of accessibility (in the absence of a ramp or elevated lift for people with locomotory deficiencies) in the shopping centre HM Shopping Mall located in Hala Moldovei in Focşani, fact confirmed even by the defendant formulated. Legal persons, including private companies, must show exigency and concern, given the importance of respecting the principle of non-discrimination. However, including service providers, traders must take account of this requirement in order to prevent any possible discriminatory behaviour, since the right to non-discrimination is one of the fundamental rights in a democratic society, the right to equality being an immediate right and not pro- gressive, since discrimination itself is an affront to human dignity. Discriminatory treat- ment often has the purpose or effect of humiliating, degrading, or interfering with the digni- ty of the discriminated person, in particular if such treatment is publicly available. Treating someone less favourably due to inherent criteria suggests primarily contempt or disrespect for his personality. The Steering board decides: 1. The claimed facts constitute discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1 in conjunction with art. 10, lit. f) from O.G. no. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of dis- crimination, republished; 2. Sanctioning applicant with a fine of 1000 lei; 3. Obligating petitioner to publish the summary of this judgment in the press in a local newspaper, according to art. 26 par. 2 from O.G. no. 137/2000; 4. A copy of this decision shall be sent to the parties. 8. Access to education The petitioner complains of the discrimination he is subjected to by excluding him from the national Olympic team of Romania at the International Olympiad of Modern Russian Language on the basis of his citizenship, respectively the refusal by the Ministry of National Education to recognize his merits at the contest (maximum score and 1st prize at the contest “The young orator”) since he was not part of the delegation approved by the ministry. The Steering board notes that the petitioner is a Romanian citizen according to his father’s Romanian citizenship certificate, which he regained on 03.11.2016, a student at the “Virgil Madgearu” Economic College, the 10th grade, scholar of the Romanian state. Among the criteria students have to meet in order to participate in the International Russian Modern Olympics held in Moscow on November 20-26, 2016, there is also the qualification criterion on “Romanian citizenship proven by identity card or passport issued by the Romanian au- thorities “. The Steering board decides: 48 1.The claimed facts constitute discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1 and par. 4, corrob- orated with art. 11 par. 2 from G.O. no. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination, republished; 2. Sanctioning the petitioner with a fine of 2000 lei. 9. Nationality. The right to personal dignity The petitioners complained, and the National Council for Combating Discrimination had acted in response to the following public claims of the petitioner : Hungarians “as a peo- ple, are a people of migrants. They came to Europe fraudulently, practically. Yes. Let’s re- member! They have nothing to look for, they are not Europeans, and their language is not European. “; “Romania would be fine without the Hungarians. Transylvania would stand exceptionally without Hungarians.” „ Arabs in Syria and Palestine, you in Hungary and we here.” „ The Hungarians here, if they are so Hungarian and so against the Romanian people, stay in Hungary”; „ Romania would be fine without the Hungarians. Transylvania would stand exceptionally without Hungarians.” „ do you think you are wanted some- where? Do you think there is any nation in Europe that loves the Hungarians??” The Steering Board finds that the complainant, on 02.10.2016, on Banciu’s TV show at B1, starting at 23 o’clock, commented on a referendum on receiving refugees in Hungary and made the aforementioned statements. It can be seen that the allegations were made publicly. The allegations that the Hungarians are not Europeans, and thus they have no place Europe, are deeply offensive. The petitioner suggests that the Hungarians would be unwanted in Europe because of fraudulent migration. Such an assertion is meant to create a hostile en- vironment for the Hungarians. The claimant’s claims are aimed at diminishing dignity, cre- ating a hostile, degrading, humiliating environment for all Hungarians. Otherwise they are incidents and the provisions of art. 15 of G.O. no. 137/2000. By decision 80 of February 1, 2017, the Steering Board found that the claimed claims represent discrimination according to the provisions of art. 2 par. 1 and art. 15 from G.O. no. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination. Also, the Steering Board has ordered the defendant to pay a fine in the amount of 5000 lei, according to art. 26 par. 1 from G.O. no. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination. 10. Religion. Access to public services The petitioner regards as discriminatory the inexistence of a public cemetery that would allow the burial of persons of other religions than those with their own cemeteries. The peti- tioner indicates that, following the death of a person belonging to the Baptist cult, the local public authority claimed it did not find a solution for burial in the locality, even if a natural person proposed the burial of that person on his own land of that deceased person. Subse- quently, the complainant expressed his consent to the establishment of a Baptist cemetery. It was not known whether the cemetery where the funeral was intended belonged to the local authority or the Romanian Orthodox Church. Activity Report 2017 49 By decision no. 296 of 10.05.2017, the Steering board has found that the actions com- plained of constitute discrimination according to the provisions of art. 2 par. 1 and art. 4 from G.O. no. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination. Also, the Steering board ordered the amount of 2000 lei to be charged as a fine, and also rec- ommends that the petitioner sets up the communal cemetery according to the provisions of Law no. 489/2006. 11. Language. Access to education The petitioner regards as discriminatory the reduction of places for the 9th grade classes with teaching in Hungarian as compared to the number of pupils who finish the 8th grade. Through the petition registered at the National Council for Combating Discrimination, the petitioner, parliament member, points out that the School Plan for the school year 2017- 2018, elaborated by the complainant, provides 53 classes instead of 59 classes required for the number of 1653 pupils from the Hungarian class who wish to continue their studies in the Hungarian language. The Romanian classes were approved with 132 places more than required for 3060 pupils who complete the gymnasium cycle, and for the German section with 18 seats more. The Steering board finds that the curriculum under consideration has created a distinction between pupils who graduated in 2017 the Romanian or German class- es from the pupils who finished at the Hungarian class. Through decision no. 642 from 08.11.2017, the Steering board has found that the actions complained of constitutes discrimination according to the provisions of art. 2 par. 1 and par. 4 and Article 11 paragraph 1 and par. 2 from G.O. no. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanc- tioning of all forms of discrimination. Also, the Steering board ordered the amount of 2000 lei to be charged as a fine and at the same time advised the complainant that the school plan be devel