Vezi raport EN

N.C.C.D. | Activity Report | 2016  his representative were assaulted by an employee in the parking space of Hotel Muntenia after having parked their vehicle on a parking space marked as “temporary reserved”, and thus their security and protection were threatened. As a result of this incident, during 2013, both the petitioner and his representative were summoned for police hearings as part of the criminal files that had been opened in the case. Critics on not providing access in the insti- tutions of the public administration are brought, as well as on the ways the criminal files are investigated - upon their petition (as complainants) and with them as criminal suspects. The Steering board noted that, because of the petitioner’s disability (a person in a wheelchair), he cannot exercise his right to access like any other normal person and that he has to benefit from additional measures from the part of the defendant parties in order to be able to exercise his rights. The petitioner’s access to and out of buildings belonging to Hotel Muntenia, Police Precinct 1, 3 Pitesti and Pitesti Court is restrained/impossible by the lack of access ramps, the lack of disabled toilets, lack of especially marked parking spaces able to provide equitable access without any additional effort from the part of the petitioner in the wheelchair. The Steering board Resolution no. 427/15.06.2016 noted that the facts charged against the defendants: Hotel Muntenia (Pitești), Police Precinct 1 and Police Precinct 3, represent facts of discrimination pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 corroborated with Art. 10 letter h) and Art. 15 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 republished and ordered a contraventional fine of Lei 6000 each. The facts held against the defendant Pitesti Court by Argeș Tribunal represent facts of discrimination pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 corroborated with Art. 10 letter h) and Art. 15 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 republished, the contraventional fine being enforced via an acknowledgment record on non-compliance with social care legal provisions, series: ANPIS no. 10743/25.03.2015; No elements of a fact of discrimination are found, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 republished, against the Mayor of Pitesti, Argeș Tribunal and Pitesti Appeal Court. 26. Personal dignity. Disability The petitioner claims that on September 30, 2015 around 12:20, in the courtyard of the C.B. school in Bucharest sector 3, she was physically and verbally abused by the defendant, the latter verbally insulting her and her son who was diagnosed with “global mental and language moderate retard, IQ 55, 2nd degree obesity, hyperthyroidism under substitution treatment”. It has been ascertained that statements were made in public and target the right to personal dignity, creating a hostile, degrading, humiliating atmosphere against the petitioner and her son, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 15 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000. The legitimacy of sanctions is given by the need to mainly protect others’ reputation and rights but one can also invoke public safety, moral preservation. The Steering board Resolution no. 551/07.09.2016 noted that facts described in the petition represent facts of discrimination pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 corroborated to Art. 15 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 republished and fined the defendant 1,000 lei. 27. Disability. Access to public premises The petitioner reports that the green light equipment with acoustic signals installed at the Examples of the Council Steering board’s case law 59  crossroads Șos. Olteniţa with Bd. C. Brâncoveanu and Str. Alunișului and the lack of access ramps restricted the access of disabled persons, in particular blind people. The petitioner claims that, as the local authorities only managed to provide easy access only in a small part of the crossroads in Bucharest, she filed many petitions both in her name and in the name of some associations, requesting proper equipment’s with crossing buttons at the crossroads of Șos. Olteniţei and Bd. Constantin Brâncoveanu and Str. Alunișului, considering the high number of blind people in that area, in addition to people with other disabilities. The complainant claims the equipment is improper, because of the incorrectly adjusted acoustic signals and the signalled area adapted only from one side of the road up to the middle of it crossroads, with no continuation to the other side of the street. One can in fact start crossing the road at the green light only up to the middle of the street, where blind people will have to risk their life to finish crossing the street. The complainant claims that access ramps are also tricky and cannot be used by a person in a wheelchair. The Steering board Resolution no. 41/20.01.2016 noted that the case is pursuant to the pro- visions of Art. 2 par. 1 and Art. 10 letter h) of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as republished, and imposed a warning on the defendant Mayor of Bucharest, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 7 of the Government Ordinance no. 2/2001 on the legal regime of offences and of Art. 26 par. 1 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as republished. The Steering board recommends Mayor of Bucharest that they take appropriate measures no later than 6 months to provide budgetary funding for the repair of the situation notified by the complainant and implement measures taken in no longer than 1 year. The Steering board also recommends social inspectors within the National Agency for Payments and Social Inspection within the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Protection and Elderly to control and sanction in no more than 6 months the lack of measures pursuant to the valid legislation. 28. Language. Access to public information The complainant claims that one of the public buildings of the Ciceu Mayor’s Institution is exclusively branded in Hungarian. The complainant claims that there is a sign written exclu- sively in Hungarian on one of the public buildings of the Ciceu Mayor’s Institution, Harghita county. The petitioner also submitted a series of photos with the building marked as “Kul- turotthon”. The complainant claims that by placing that sign written exclusively in Hungarian she is conditioned access to information regarding the destination of that building by the knowledge of Hungarian language. The mayor of Ciceu sends a very clear message through which he shows Romanian citizens who speak Hungarian are preferred. The petitioner, in her written conclusions, shows that the mayor took down the sign after receiving the petition and associated documentation. The Steering board Resolution no. 43/20.01.2016 notes the existence of a differentiated and discriminatory treatment pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 corroborated to Art. 10 letter h) of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as republished, and ruled on imposing a warning, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 5 par. 2 and Art. 7 par. 3 of Government Ordinance no. 2/2001 on the legal regime of offences, with additional changes and modifications. The Steering board also recommends the defendant to make all due efforts so that public interest information be 60 N.C.C.D. | Activity Report | 2016  found both in Romanian and Hungarian languages, thus offering all people the possibility to unrestrained access to public interest information. 29. Employment. Child care leave. Gender The complainant reports the humiliating, unjust, degrading and discriminatory treatment she was subjected to upon her return to work from child care leave. The petitioner, employed as General Director with extended responsibilities as a Commercial Director within the defendant part, shows that she has been subjected by the defendant to humiliating, unjust, degrading and discriminatory treatment upon her return to work from child care leave. During the child care leave until the child turns 1, on 09.10.2014, the petitioner was summoned to the defendant’s headquarters where she was verbally informed on the liquidation of the manage- ment positions she was occupying and on the fact that colleagues in Centrofarm took over the associated responsibilities. The petitioner was recommended to look for work because “your position as a General Director is out” and, because she however did not perform well and showed no interest in work since she went home to care for her child, although other colleagues had babies and worked from home, and she has been told: “Things might not have slipped so bad if you didn’t have this child and continued working”. From the very first day of work, in a discussion with the employer’s representatives on her return to work, she was informed on the following: her reputation will be affected “it is a pity that employers who contributed to your professional development speak bad of you. This happens because such an attitude as yours is not of nature to generate any sympathy”; nothing good will come out of this situation “You won’t win anything, believe me, out of all this rattle” and the petitioner would supposedly have to suffer the most hostile working conditions ever, especially mental ones “nobody will like you because I will see to this. I will call for a general meeting with the whole company and I will say: Raluca has no job here, she keeps fighting with us, we will park her in office 3 and nobody will be allowed to talk to her because you are not her subor- dinates. The matter ends here. You will be an outcast in this office. It is very burdensome. Do you understand? So you don’t afford to do this. You will go crazy. It is a pity.” The petitioner shows she is the only employee of the defendant who does not have a company mobile phone, laptop/computer, as she was forced to hand them back upon her return to work. She is the only employee who is not allowed to read or write anything, except draw on napkins, paper coffee mugs or bits of paper. She is not allowed to have a notebook or to speak on the phone and she is constantly reminded she is the only employee that has to do nothing and she will be fired as soon as the law will allow it. The petitioner is the only employee who does not have access to the internal network, to the timekeeping system, vacation system, and she is the only employee who is not allowed to work. The defendant says that, as a result of the economic state of our society, the whole manage- ment system was replaced, 10 people were fired and the company is administered by another company. The petitioner was the only one not fired because of the legal status which did not allow for her to be fired. Taking into account the exceptional situation of the petitioner and that of the employer - that is all management positions have been liquidated, the company does nothing more than fulfil its legal obligations. The Steering board Resolution no. 88/03.02.2016 noted a fact of discrimination from the part of the defendant, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1, Art. 2 par. 5 corroborated with Art. 7 letter a of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment Examples of the Council Steering board’s case law 61  of all facts of discrimination, as republished, and of Art. 10 par. 8 corroborated with Art. 6 par. 1 and 3 of Law 202/2002 on equal treatment between men and women, as republished, and imposed on the defendant S.C. Plafar Retail S.R.L. by its representative a contraventional fine of Lei 2000 pursuant to the provisions of Art.2 par. 11, Art. 26 par. 1 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 modified and amended by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 19/27.03.2013, corroborated with Art. 8 of the Government Ordinance no. 2/2001 on the legal status of offences. 30. Differentiated Treatment. Disability The petitioner’s notification refers to a potentially different treatment in the case of the refusal, by the defendant, to allow the vehicle tax exemption for the complainant who was acting on behalf of the severely disabled child. The defendant explains that, following the clarifications received from the line ministry, by means of the letter registered with no. 1661/4/8/2016, the institution had informed the petitioner acting on behalf of M. A. C., the severely disabled child, on the fact that they were allowed the exemption from the payment of the vehicle tax for the vehicle Hyundai Elantra. In its Decision nr. 759/23.11.206, the steering board decided that a differentiated discrimi- nating treatment took place on grounds of disability, according to article 2 paragraph 1 and article 10 h) of the Government Decision 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all forms of discrimination, as republished (unanimity of votes) and ruled for a contraventional warning against the defendant, pursuant to article 26 of the Government Decision 137/2000, in conjunction with article 7 of the Government Decision no. 2/2001 on the judicial regime of contraventions, as further amended and supplemented; Recommends to the other party to show concern and resilience in order to take into consideration, in providing services to the citizens, all the relevant differences and all the appropriate measures to make sure that the available services are specifically afforded by all citizens. 31. Job advertisement. Access Restricted to Men. The petitioner referred to the fact that job advertisement with following contents was posted on Facebook: “Craiova English Schools employing a female MA/MSc student, Italian, French and/or English speaking, with a pleasant personality, convivial and patient, for children at school/day-care, or adults. The ideal candidate is a female, team-player and result-oriented student or MA/MSc student”. He claims, at the same time, that several pictures were posted as well, showing little girls only. The petitioner considers the respective job advertisement as discriminatory and asks the following question: “Do men not have the right to work? And what about men who teach foreign languages? 62 N.C.C.D. | Activity Report | 2016  What if his son wanted to study foreign languages? Would he try to talk his son out of it because he may be discriminated? The defendant responds that the job advertisement about a female MA/MSc female student “with a pleasant personality, convivial and patient” hadn’t been meant to imply a state of men inferiority. In its partnerships, Craiova day-care focused on the act of teaching to children’s best interest and not on men discrimination. In addition, they say, the company was established and managed by a male person, with another male person employed under a non-term based contract. Therefore, the gender requirement was out of question. The complainant added to his point of view a request from the Parents and Teachers Associ- ation of the Tudor Vladimirescu Kindergarten 21, on behalf of which the job advertisement had been posted. The steering board takes into account that the respective advertisement was the only one, among many others posted as part of a Facebook recruitment campaign, to have a discrim- inatory content, therefore it ruled for least severe penalty, namely a warning notice. In its Decision no. 513/20.07.2016, the Steering board retained that the aspects in this case were an act of discrimination, pursuant to the provisions of article 2 paragraph 1 and article 8 paragraph 2 of the Government Decision 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all forms of discrimination, as republished; It decided to give a warning notice to Craiova English School, in line with the provisions of article 5 paragraph 2 a) of the Government Decision no. 2/2001 (6 votes for and 2 votes against, counting the members attending the meeting) and recommended the defendant to avoid, such action leading to discrimination in the future (unanimity of votes); 32. Access to economic services. Disability The petitioner, a person with a serious disability, filed against the female defendants who refused to hand him the digital bank card motivating that there was no holograph signature. The defendants did not submit any point of view with respect to the aspects in the complaint before the date on which the case was settled. In its Decision no. 111/10.02.2016, the Steering board ascertained the incriminated facts as an action of discrimination, pursuant to article 2 paragraph 1 and article 10 d) in conjunction with the provisions of article 15 of the Government Decision 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all forms of discrimination, as republished; The Steering board decided for a contraventional fine of 40,000 lei to Păcurari Raiffeisen Bank Agency through a legal representative, for the facts incriminated by article 2 paragraph Examples of the Council Steering board’s case