Vezi raport EN

oped in a fair way in the future for those who finish the 8th grade in Hungarian. 12. Disfavoured category (candidate height). The right to education The petitioner refers to the provisions of Order no. 140/2016 of M.I.A. on the human re- sources management activity in the police units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The pe- titioner considers that the right to pursue a career in the police is restricted because of the height criterion established by the Order of the Minister of Internal Affairs no. 140/2016. The petitioner notified the National Council for Combating Discrimination through petition 5479 / 16.09.2016, establishing the existence of acts of discrimination through the decision no.147 / 01.03.2017. By its ruling, the Steering board has established the existence of a discriminatory act falling under the provisions of Article 2 paragraph 3 and Art. 11 par. 1 of GO no. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination, republished and that the defendant shall pay a fine in the amount of 2000 lei. 50  13. Employment. Maternity leave. The petitioner, working as operating inspector at the Timis County Post Office, notes that she was fired on 30.08.2016. In February 2013 she left on maternity leave until February 2016. On her return from maternity leave she was notified by address no. 119.8 / 345 / 18.02.2016 that the position held dissolved as a result of the reorganization ordered by the Steering board Decision no. 175 / 14.06.2013 and that, after the expiration of the 6-month period, she is to be fired, which has happened. Through Decision no. 435 of 04.10.2017, the Steering board decided on the issues raised, ascertaining the existence of a differentiated, discriminatory treatment according to art. 2 par. 1 and 7 a) from O.G. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination, republished, as well as art. 10 par. 6 and 7 of Law no. 202/2002 on equal opportunities and treatment between women and men, republished (by unanimity of votes). The National Council for Combating Discrimination sanctions the Romanian Post Roma- nian Company S.A. by a legal representative with a fine of 5,000 lei according to art. 7 of O.G. no. 2/2001 on the contravention regime (by 7 votes in favour and one opposed). 14. Sexual orientation. Right to personal dignity The petitioner refers to the matter of discrimination in the public space, respectively on a news site, harassing and victimizing them in public space through defamatory statements. The criterion indicated by the petitioners is sexual orientation. The Steering Board finds that the allegations were made publicly, respectively on a news portal and aimed at achieving the dignity of the petitioners. The allegations were likely to create a hostile, degrading, humiliating atmosphere against the petitioners on the grounds of sexual orientation. Through Decision no. 656 / 15.11.2017, the Steering board pronounced itself on the issues raised, ascertaining the existence of differentiated, discriminatory treatment according to art. 2 par. 1, art. 2, par. 7, art. 7 lit. a) and art. 15 from G.O. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination, republished. The petitioner was sanctioned with a fine of 2000 lei for the acts provided in art. art. 2 para- graph 1 and art. 15 from G.O. 137/2000, republished. At the same time, it is recommended that the petitioner avoid the occurrence of discrimination acts in the future. 15. Ethnic origin. Right to personal dignity The Petitioner, Active Watch Association, claims that on the www.corbiialbi.ro portal, the article posted on 05.06.2016 “The Romanian, the biggest enemy of the Romanians” contains defamatory assertions against the Roma. Activity Report 2017 51 In the published article, the petitioner makes several discriminatory claims: “The black faces, with scarred hair starched with the mixture of sebum, dust and sweat, the barefoot legs and ragged clothes of the people who assail you wherever you go with the insistence of giving them money or something to eat become something ordinary in time it does not disturb you anymore.” “You can easily accept that there is a dry forest near you, where, here and there, there is a green branch and sometimes even a stray green tree, because among the Roma - because they are - there are decent people who have a career, go to high schools and have exempla- ry social behaviours. “ “People without literature and written historical sources, the Gypsies have once settled in various localities in the country and have never been taken away. It was a matter of choosing and imposing this choice on the will of those who were already in the territory at the time of their coming. Champions of school drop-out, unemployment and social aid, begging, delinquencies, de- ceivers and other deeds of this kind, the Gypsies have not only preserved their identity over the years, but have also established some kind of autonomy de facto through the presence of those kings and bulibasa, never disputed by anyone who pronounces sentences and im- pose rules.” It also shows that “the Gypsies have imposed themselves as they are on a society that they overcome with each other, infesting it and contaminating it visibly with vulgarity, manifes- tations that defy the code of manners and kitsch, but nobody takes a stand. “The general message of the article is that the Hungarian minority should not be considered as the one that represents a threat towards the majority but the Roma minority. This article is directed against the entire Roma minority, which is presented in antithesis with the Hungarian minority, as the real danger to the Romanian citizens. There is a hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive atmosphere against the Roma minority, having as a single criterion membership in a disfavouring group. The petitioner states that the claimed article is one of the old catalytic articles used/ pub- lished at a time when the topic of the debate was anti-human psychosis, namely anti-immi- grant psychosis. The article has undergone changes in the moving from one field to another on the indicated portal. The article was written in 2015 and did not suggest what was being claimed, as it was part of a whole system of articles, harsh comments, in which it played its part. Depending on the interest in the topic, the article changes its place among the head- ings. The author of the article asserts that she had no intention of denigrating anyone. It was writ- ten in order to gain the right to write on the portal that pleads for tolerance and understand- ing between ethnicities, especially Hungarians and Romanians, because most tensions are known there, but not only. This was the idea from which it started, to show that at a national level it is a paradox, unreasonable and difficult to understand the hatred of the Hungarians, who are a decent ethnic community, although Romanians are able to tolerate the exponents of an ethnic group, in practice, could give rise to disputes. At the end of the article, Roma- 52 nians are admonished, the author being Romanian and it is concluded that neither Hungar- ians nor Gypsies pose a threat to the majority. This article has been understood by many readers, over 3100, and over the course of a whole year there has been no discussion of any possible discrimination of the parties concerned during the debate. The chief editor acknowledges that he has failed to reread this old article. It is also shown that both the petitioner and the petitioner militate for minority rights and it would have been enough just to inform the complainant and it would have removed the article with one click. The complainant appreciates that, out of grudge, a seed of scandal is being sought out against the portal she owns. The petitioner also has objections to sub-ur- ban remarks made by the petitioner, that they are hurt by the comments addressed to them, comments which do not honour and do not lead to the fight against discrimination. The hostile attitude of the petitioner worries them, not the fact that they watch over the texts published by the press. It invites them to express their views in the space for dialogue and debate and to end this conflict amicably. Regarding the situation, the provisions of art. 2, par. 1, O.G. no. 137/2000, republished ap- ply. The publication of the information / appreciation shown is direct discrimination, as it creates a difference from the other inhabitants of the area, affecting the morals and reputa- tion of the ethnic Roma, and has the effect of restricting the exercise of the right to dignity on an equal basis. The complainant did not invoke objective justification, including the existence of a legiti- mate aim, achieved by appropriate and necessary methods. In the analysis of the legitimate purpose, it is necessary to analyse the existence of this objective in relation to the right at- tained by differentiation (for example, according to the European Convention on Human Rights, freedom of expression may be restricted for the following legitimate purposes: na- tional security, territorial integrity, public security, the prevention of crime, the protection of health, morals, reputation or the rights of others to prevent the disclosure of confidential information in order to guarantee the authority and impartiality of the judiciary power. The Steering board notes that the provisions of art.15 of GO no. 137/2000 apply, by publishing information on the Roma ethnic group’s assessments as formulated and aimed at achieving human dignity, creating an atmosphere of intimidation, humili- ation, offensive against the group. Therefore, the Steering Board finds that the facts presented in the petition constitute dis- crimination under Art. 2 paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 15 of OG. no.137 / 2000, republished and orders the application of a fine of 2000 lei for the defendant. 16. Disability. Access to public services The applicant, as the legal representative of a person with a severe disability, diagnosed with leukodystrophy, is aware of a possible act of discrimination because she did not receive ac- commodation and treatment at the hotel unit claimed. Activity Report 2017 53 At the hotel reception, presenting accommodation and treatment documents, he was told that he had to first obtain the approval of the hotel complex’s director because one of the people to be accommodated has locomotory problems and is carrying pampers. He informed them that the hotel unit does not have accommodation and treatment for people with dis- abilities, they do not have a room for disabled persons, the hotel was built in 1970, and the size of the doors does not allow the carriage to enter in the rooms and that the bathrooms (bathrooms) are not adapted for people with such needs. At the same time, they were advised to return to their home town, to go to the Pension House and ask for the sums paid for the treatment tickets. Being rejected from the hotel, they stayed elsewhere. By asking for supporting documents on the impossibility of staying, they were refused. The next day they got in touch with the Pension House and were told that they would not be paid for the treatment / rest tickets unless they had a certificate from the hotel or contact the National House of Pensions in Bucharest. By contacting the latter and telling all that happened, they were told that the hotel director shall be contacted. In a little while he received an SMS saying that he could pick up the required certificates from the Hotel. Because of the petitioner’s disability, he cannot exercise his right of access under the same conditions as people who do not have such locomotory disabilities, and he needs to take additional measures (special accommodation rooms and bathing room for the patient’s hy- giene to enter with the trolley), in order to exercise their rights equally with them. Thus, the Steering Board finds the existence of a differentiated, discriminatory treatment, according to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 10 let. f) and art.15, regarding the effects created by re- stricting the access for persons with locomotory disabilities and gives the petitioner a fine of 1,000 lei according to art. 26 par. 1 from O.G. no. 137/2000. 17. Gender. Equal employment LM, as Inspector General within the Ministry of Education, and being in a superior hierar- chical position than the petitioner, accuses him of offensive behaviour, of theft and lack of professionalism “office documents are not safe around him”, and “the Ministry of Education hires on other criteria than professional ones, people who do not have anything to do with the education system. “ The Discipline Commission met. The ministry summoned the members of the discipline commission, who initiated the disciplinary research procedures and included the facts noti- fied to the disciplinary offense according to art.77, para.2, g, of Law no. 188/1999, based on the Minister’s Order no. 1337.22.06.2016. The control body started the procedure for verify- ing the facts, and heard the parties as well as the witnesses proposed by them. The petitioner never submitted to the Discipline Commission, being repeatedly on sick leave and on 19.09.2016, at his request, the service relations were suspended. The Steering board, through Decision no. 712 / 06.12.2017, found that the issues raised in the petition are discriminatory according to art. 2 paragraph 1 and art. 15, “It is a contraven- 54 tion if the deed is not subject to criminal law, any conduct manifested in public, having the character of nationalistic-chauvinist propaganda, of incitement to racial or national hatred, or that behaviour that has the purpose or aim of diminishing dignity or creating an intimi- dating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment directed against a person, group of persons or a community and related to their belonging to a particular race, nation- ality, ethnicity, religion, social category or a disadvantaged or degrading category beliefs, sex, or sexual orientation,” from OG no. 137/2000 republished. The Steering board sanctions the petitioner L.M for offensive and discriminatory behaviour towards the petitioner, with a fine in the amount of 1,000 lei according to art. 26, par. 1) and 2), of GO no. 137/2000, as amended, corroborated with art. 8 of the GO no.2 / 2001, regard- ing the legal regime of contraventions. 18. Gender. Trade union membership The members of the N.L.T.F.T.R. syndicate are discriminated against by T.C.F.R on the basis of their membership. Thus, union members are given lower wage earnings by the employer to get them to leave the trade union. The petitioner is being denied a series of work-related rights, regulated by the Art. 5, paragraph 3 and paragraph 4, “The principle of equality of treatment applies to all employees and employers”, “discriminatory acts and facts appar- ently based on criteria other than those stipulated in paragraphs 2, but which produce the effects of direct discrimination.” “ In settling the petition more objectively, the petitioner submits to the case file a large num- ber of statements on his / her own responsibility, showing how the trade union members were discriminated against on the basis of the reduced wage payment compared to other colleagues who are not part of the representative union.” The Steering board, through Decision no.589/18.10.2017, found that the issues raised in the petition are discriminatory, according to art. 2, parag. 1, and art. 7 with a), “termination, suspension, modification or termination of the employment relationship “, g),” any other conditions of work, according to the legislation in force “. The Steering board sanctions in contravention petitioner S.C.T.CFR S.A, through legal rep- resentative Mr A. I. - Director, with a fine in the amount of 20,000 lei, according to art. 26, par. 1) and 2) of OG no. 137/2000, as amended, in conjunction with art.8 of GO no.2 / 2001, regarding the legal regime of contraventions. The Steering board recommends the petitioner S.C.T. CFR S.A, to show in the future non-discriminatory behaviour, based on equality of rights for all its employees, without distinction on the basis of union membership. Activity Report 2017 55 Prevention of all forms of discrimination T he actions provided in the N.C.C.D. agenda have been aimed at promoting equality and diversity, priorities being focused on eliminating stereotypes, changing discrim- inatory mentalities and practices to achieve the goal of social equality. In 2017, N.C.C.D. has continued to strengthen relations with non-governmental organiza- tions in the field of human rights and respect the principle of equal treatment and equal opportunities among citizens, strengthening relations with governmental institutions of the same sphere of interest and similar governmental and non-governmental bodies from an international level. The experience gained over the years has shown that information is very important in build- ing correct, responsible and tolerant mentalities within the society. So, by publishing bro- chures and purchasing video materials, organizing conferences and Summer Schools or by training some professional categories in the field of preventing and combating discrimi- nation, our institution continued in 2017 the national information policy on the effects of discrimination, while actively involving citizens in promoting the principles of non-discrim- ination and equal opportunities. The efforts of the National Council for Combating Discrimination to promote