Vezi raport EN

ing the meeting) decided to fine the high school with Lei 2,000 taking into account that this is a case of direct discrimination pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1, corroborated to the provisions of Art. 11 par. 1 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000. In what concerns the Inspectorate, the Steering board members unanimously acknowledge the fact of discrim- ination, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 4 corroborated to the provisions of Art. 11 par. 1 of the GO 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as republished, and imposes a contraventional fine of Lei 4,000 to the School Inspectorate. Defendant parties have also been obliged (unanimously voted by all members attending the meeting) to publish the summary of the present decision, excluding the personal data involved, on their Web sites and into a local newspaper. 16. Equal opportunity for access to housing The Romanian National Council for Combating Discrimination opened an own investigation on the limitation of the rights of disabled people and people belonging to vulnerable social categories to access social housing as compared to other social categories, due to a different ranking. The Steering boardRomanian National Council for Combating Discrimination’s Steering board notes that the access of disabled to social housing is limited as compared to other social categories. Thus, the Steering board notes that criterion no. 4 “disabled people” grants only 4 points to people falling under this category as compared to 15 points granted to people falling under criterion no. 7, “veterans and war widowers, revolutionaries as per Law 341/2004 modified and amended, war crippled, former political prisoners and their heirs” or to people with higher education (10 points). The Steering board notes that, in this case, the defendant limits also the equal access to social housing of the people in vulnerable groups. The defendant did not reverse the burden of proof. The Steering board Resolution no. 349/04.05.2016 (unanimously voted by all members attending the meeting) decided to fine the Mayor of Bucharest with a contraventional fine of Lei 10,000 taking into account that this is a fact of discrimination pursuant to the provi- sions of Art. 2 par. 1 and par. 4, corroborated to the provisions of Art. 10 letters a) and h) of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000, as republished. It also requires the defendant to publish a summary of the decision in the media and recommends it to review the examined decision in the sense of increasing the points number for the above-mentioned categories. A six-months monitoring period was started. 17. The daily school program difference Solicitors U.M. and U.D. notify the Romanian National Council for Combating Discrimi- nation of the existence of a difference in the daily program between three classes XI (same year of study) - morning program for the two bilingual (Spanish studies) XI classes (whose students attended gymnasium within the high school) and afternoon program for the one non-bilingual (students coming from other schools). 54 N.C.C.D. | Activity Report | 2016  After examining the state of facts the Steering board notes that by separating the two shifts - morning program for the two bilingual Spanish studies XI classes and afternoon program for the one non-bilingual - the defendant prioritizes the students who attended gymnasium within the high school and offers them the possibility to attend morning classes while stu- dents coming from other schools were restricted the right to equal opportunity education by the differentiated treatment of afternoon program. The Steering board Resolution no. 440/22.06.2016 noted that favouring the students who attended gymnasium within the high school by offering them the possibility to attend morning classes as compared to the students coming from other schools, in the sense of restricting equal opportunity education access by applying the different treatment of afternoon classes is a fact of discrimination pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1, corroborated to Art. 10, letter h of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 as republished, and recommended the defendant to draft a schedule to take into account the same program for all groups/classes of the same year of study, or to enforce a rotational schedule so that all students of the same year be offered the possibility to attend both morning and afternoon classes. 18. Restriction of equal access to education The Romanian National Council for Combating Discrimination opened an investigation by itself on granting additional free of admission seats for children of teachers or employees of the defendant college for the 5th grade admission in 2016. The Romanian National Council for Combating Discrimination Steering board notes that the defendant favours the children of teachers or employees of the college, as specified in the provisions of point 10 of the ad- mission procedure for the 5th grade class of 2016. The Steering board notes that the burden of proof has not been reversed for the present case. The Steering board Resolution no. 349/04.05.2016 (unanimously voted by all members at- tending the meeting) notes the existence of a differentiated and discriminatory treatment pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 corroborated to Art. 10 letter h) and Art. 11 par. 1 of the GO 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as re- published (unanimously voted), and disposed that the defendant be fined with a warning and together with the obligation of publishing a summary of the present decision in the media. 19. The right to equal opportunity access to social services The complainant notifies the Romanian National Council for Combating Discrimination on the existence of a different financing quantum on social services for the disabled within the public system as compared to the private one. The complainant association offers integrated services for children, youth and adults and benefits from a smaller state financing than public institutions offering the same set of services. After analysing the situation, the Steering board notes that differentiated state financing of private social services represents a fact of discrimination. Disabled people resorting to the public system are in comparable situation with those resorting to the private one, because they have the right to benefit from the minimum standard social services established by the Government of Romania. The Steering board notes that the state externalizes the provision Examples of the Council Steering board’s case law 55  of social services to the disabled to NGOs and establishes the same set of authorization stan- dards as in the case of public institutions and also notes that this does not give the authorities the right to underfinance (10 times lower) services per person per month. The Steering board Resolution no. 576/14.09.2016 noted that differentiated state financing of private social services as compared to the public ones, effecting in the breach of the right to equal opportunity access to social services is a fact of discrimination pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1, Art. 2 par. 4, Art. 10 letter h) corroborated to Art. 15 of the Government Ordi- nance no. 137/2000 republished and ruled (by the unanimous vote of all members attending the meeting) to impose a contraventional fine of Lei 7,000 to the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Protection and Elderly and a contraventional fine to the Government of Romania via the Government General Secretariat. 20. Discrimination of employees over trade-union membership The petitioner reports that the members of the trade union, employees of the defendant company, are discriminated against by the management over their union membership. After analysing the situation, the Romanian National Council for Combating Discrimination Steering board notes that the defendant limits the right to join a trade-union and the access to facilities granted by a union, and that members of the complainant union are harassed at the workplace by such actions. The Steering board Resolution no. 577/14.09.2016 noted that limiting the right to join a union and access to facilities granted by a union, as well as the harassment of the complainant union members at work is a fact of discrimination pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1, par. 4, Art. 2 par. 5, corroborated to Art. 7 f) of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000, republished, and imposed on the defendant, S.T.A.S. S.A., a contraventional fine of Lei 5,000 pursuant to the provisions of Art. 26 par. 1 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 together with the obligation of publishing a summary of the present decision in the media. 21. The refusal of registering a petition not written in Romanian and the refusal of a police officer to communicate with the petitioner in a language other than Romanian The petitioner’s notification refers to a case of discrimination on language gounds, the com- plainant being refused the registration of a petition and communication in a language other than Romanian. After analysing the situation, the Steering board of the Romanian National Council for Combating Discrimination notes that by refusing to register the petition and communicate in a language other than Romanian, including Hungarian as requested by the petitioner, the defendant parties breached the petitioner’s right to file petitions with public institutions and authorities. The right to file a petition is a fundamental (indestructible) right, the equality principle, privilege exclusions and anti-discrimination being guaranteed by the law. Upon the analysis of the defendant’s fact of discrimination, the Steering board took into account that, 56 N.C.C.D. | Activity Report | 2016  according to legal provisions, public authorities and institutions are required to organize a different compartment for public relations to receive, register and settle petitions and reply to the petitioners. In this case, due to the fact that 51.64% of the inhabitants of Savadisla are of Hungarian origin, the defendant Police Inspectorate is obliged to also employ people of Hungarian origin. The police agent was required to receive and register the petition; the regulations on petition solving activity state that petitions registered are to be forwarded to expert departments function of their object. The Police Inspectorate is responsible for the proper organization and development of the activity of receiving, registering and solving petitions. The Steering board Resolution no. 658/26.10.2016 showed that the refusal of registering a petition and the refusal to comment in any widespread language by the police officer rep- resents a fact of discrimination pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 and Art. 10 letter h of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 republished and decides to impose a warning on the police officer. The Police Inspectorate is responsible for the proper organization and development of the activity of receiving, registering and solving petitions. Non-compliance with the provisions of Art. 79 of Law 360/2002, of Art. 4 of the Ordinance no. 27/2002 on regulating the petition settlement activity, as updated, represents a fact of discrimination pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 and Art. 10 letter h) of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 republished and provides for a contraventional fine of Lei 2,000 pursuant to the provisions of Art. 26 par. 1 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 22. Access to public information. The right to public information The petitioner reports that information of public interest was published exclusively in the Hungarian language on the website of the defendant, the Mayor’s Institution of M. Hence, the access to public information of citizens who do not speak Hungarian is restricted and the right to public information is infringed. The Steering board Resolution no. 368/18.05.2016 notes the existence of a differentiated and discriminatory treatment on language grounds, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 and Art. 15 of the GO 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as republished, and ruled on imposing a warning on the defendant Mayor’s Institution of M., pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 and Art. 15 of the GO 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as republished. 23. Racist manifestations The Romanian National Council for Combating Discrimination opened an investigation by itself on a possible fact of discrimination by racist manifestations during a feminine handball game between H.C. Zalău and H.C.M. Baia Mare. After the game, the player M.C. and the foreign player A.P. published the following reactions on their Facebook profile pages: A.P. wrote: “...a part of Romania showed me lack of respect. I am of colour and I am proud of it. If you do not know how to appreciate this, let me remind you I am representing a Romanian team. I am polite with you all, I always stop to take pictures and what do you show me? If you do not respect me, then I do not have anything to do here. I will not let anyone step upon me, especially because of my origin”. During the game, a group of supporters of H.C. Zalău Examples of the Council Steering board’s case law 57  shouted to A.P. calling her “monkey” and imitated monkey sounds. Officials of the Romanian Handball Federation attending the game and the game referees did not take any measure in order to stop such racist manifestations, as the sports regulations required. Thus, by the passive behaviour of the FRH game observer and referees, the Steering board considers it is a case of non-criminal offences pursuant to the provisions of Government Ordinance no. 137/2000, as republished. The Steering board Resolution no. 182/02.03.2016 notes that the aspects observed represent facts of discrimination pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 corroborated to Art. 15 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, republished, and imposed a contraventional fine of Lei 5000 on the defendant - the Handbal Club of Zalău, by its legal representative; Lei 5000 on the defendant - F.R.H., by its legal representative; Lei 3000 on the FRH game observer, Mr B.A.; and Lei 2000 on the game referees, Mr. R.H. and Mr. S.S., pursuant to Art. 26 par. 1 of the GO no. 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as republished. 24. Discrimination at work, harassment and victimization The complainant claims acts of discrimination, harassment and victimization at work. The criteria indicated by the complainant are: her family situation, her maternity status and her status as a person protected by special legal provisions, that is the provisions of the Govern- ment Ordinance no. 111/2010, as well as her situation as a complainant in a case of violation of equal tratment and non-discrimination rights. The Steering board also noted that the petitioner notified the NCCD by petition no. 1897/12.03.2015, upon which the decision no. 349/12.08.2016 noted the existence of facts of discrimination. After the decision was enforced, the discriminating treatment continued, and the petitioner was still located in the same meeting room, on the ground floor of the building. Despite the petitioner’s requests, no job task was assigned to her and no office equipment was provided. The petition- er’s treatment eventually led to the termination of her labour contract as of December 8, 2015. The Steering board Resolution no. 570/14.09.2015 ruled on the notified aspects of differenti- ating and discriminatory treatment, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1, Article 2 par. 7, Article 7 letter a) and Article 15 of the GO 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as republished. The defendant was imposed a contraventional fine of RON 15,000 for the facts specified in Article 2, par. 1, Article 2, par. 7, Article 7 let- ter a) and Art. 15 of the GO 137/2000, as republished, pursuant to Art. 26 par. 1 of the GO 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as republished. The defendant was also instructed to publish a summary of the NCCD Solution pursuant to the provisions of Art. 26 (2) of the GO 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as republished. 25. Disability. Access to public premises The petitioner, a person who cannot move on their own, reports the lack of toilets for disabled, of ways and means of access or ramps, the lack of parking spaces in public institutions and Hotel Muntenia in Pitești, as representing facts of discrimination. In 2012, the petitioner and 58