Vezi raport EN

n to the document illegitimacy its lack of guilt in committing the said offence. The complainant states that the lack of guilt would result from the fact that measures have been taken to provide public transportation with access ramps and public procurement procedures have been started to this end. Criticisms do not stand as reasons for illegality as long as they are not definitely and clearly proved. Partial measures to which the complainant refers do not lead to denying or reversing the state of facts retained in the decision. On the date of this Report, the case is undergoing screening judging by the High Court of Cassation and Justice - Contentious Administrative and Fiscal Matters Section, following the recourse filed by the Mayor of Craiova. Case no. 4 I. I. The subject-matter of the case: By means of the petition filed with the Romanian national anti-discrimination council, the complainant sees the fact of not communicating a diagnosis for a minor child to her parent in the Hungarian language as discriminatory and claims a refusal of providing medical care (the release from hospital of the patient) on ethnic grounds. II. NCCD Solution After analysing all the documentation in the file, the expert documentation (hearings, view- point requests), the NCCD Steering board, by the means of the ruling that is requested to be cancelled, rules as follows: 1. There is no evidence of potential facts of harassment from the named medical doctor, as pursuant to the provisions of Art. 20 par. 6 of the GO 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as republished and amended. 2. There is no evidence that the minor patient was released from hospital on ethnic grounds, as pursuant to the provisions of Art. 20 par. 6 of the GO 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as republished and amended. 3. The fact of not informing the minor patient and her mother - who did not understand the medical language in Romanian - on the patient’s health situation, medical proce- dures proposed, potential risks of every procedure, existing alternatives to the pro- posed procedures, including on not following the medical treatment and not observing medical recommendations, as well as on data on the diagnostic and forecast, in the mother tongue, represents a fact of discrimination pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 3, Art. 2 par. 4 and Art. 10 letter b) of the GO 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as republished and amended. Legal representation of the interests of the R.N.C.C.D 35  III. Judicial control applied to the NCCD Solution no. 292/06.04.2016 By the proceedings initiated with the Bucharest Appeal Court - Section VIII Conten- tious Administrative and Fiscal Matters, the complainant Cluj-Napoca Child Emergency Hospital summoned the Romanian National Council for Combating Discrimination to trial, requesting the court to cancel the NCCD Solution no. 292/06.04.2016 as illegal and groundless. III. 1. Summary of criticisms by the complainant, the Cluj-Napoca Child Emergency Hospital: • The situation outlined in the petition was not justified and there has not been any other similar incident so far; • The situation outlined in the petition was not justified and the action was not target- ed against the hospital, but the Council resolution wrongly ruled in the aspect of the defendant not being informed. • The Council unjustly noted the non-communication as duty to the health institution and contrary to legal provisions. III. 2. NCCD Abstract of Defence: As per the subject-matter of the case, “Not informing the minor patient and her mother - who did not understand medical language in Romanian - on the patient’s health situation, medical procedures proposed, potential risks of every procedure, existing alternatives to the proposed procedures, including on not following the medical treatment and not observing medical recommendations, as well as on data on the diagnostic and forecast, in the mother tongue, represents a fact of discrimination. The lack of any regulation on communicating with non-Romanian-speaking patients can be seen as an apparently neutral measure disadvantaging certain people, based on criteria forbidden by law, with no objective reason. Certain aspects relevant to the case must be noted, as related to the conditions to be met by a fact in order to fall under the provisions of anti-discrimination legislation: First and foremost, it is retained that the complainant does not have an internal procedure in place for the communication with people who do not speak Romanian. Corroborating the definition of discrimination (Art. 2 par. 1 of the GO 137/2000R), and that of indirect discrimination (Art. 2 par. 3 of the GO 137/2000R) with the documents in the file, we note a differentiated treatment (the lack of an internal regulation) based on criteria forbidden by law (ethnic origin) resulting in the violation a right stated by the law (the right to be informed, Art. 6 and Art. 8 of the Law 46/2003 on patient rights). In what concerns the fulfilment of elements of a fact of discrimination, as they are provi- sioned by the Art. 2 par. 3 of GO 137/2000, we note a neutral and apparently legal practice (the lack of internal regulations) disadvantaging certain people on the grounds of a criterion forbidden by law (ethnic origin). 36 N.C.C.D. | Activity Report | 2016  The existence of a discriminating criterion is ascertained, as ground for the allegedly differ- entiated treatment, that is the ethnic origin and language criterion. A neutral practice is therefore noted, disadvantaging a person by violating the patient’s right to be informed in their native language (Art. 6 and Art. 8 of Law 46/2003 on the rights of patients). The differentiated treatment, consisting in the lack of internal regulations on informing patients who do not speak Romanian, was not objectively justified by a legitimate purpose and the methods of applying it were not proper and necessary. The European Court of Human Rights in its case law showed that an objective and reasonable justification must have a legitimate purpose and the measures taken must be proportional to that purpose. The lack of any regulation on informing patients who do not speak Romanian disadvantaged the patient and her mother, because the latter were not able to get medical information on the minor’s health situation. In analysing the legitimate purpose, one has to examine the existence of purpose as reported to the rights breached by differentiated treatment (according to the Convention, the free- dom of speech can be restrained for the following legitimate purposes: national security, territorial integrity, public safety, public order, crime prevention, health, morale or rights protection, prevention of confidential data leaks, in order to guarantee the authority and fairness of justice). In the process of analysing the adequate and necessary method, one has to establish whether the chosen method leads to the desired purpose and whether there are alternative methods to reach said purpose without creating a differentiating/disadvantaging situation. III. 3. Court Ruling: The Ruling no. 279/2016 of the Bucharest Appeal Court - Section VIII Contentious Admin- istrative and Fiscal Matters dismissed as groundless the petition filed by complainant, the Cluj-Napoca Child Emergency Hospital, against the NCCD resolution no. 292/06.04.2016 and fully endorsed as justified the administrative jurisdictional resolution of NCCD. On the date of this Report, the Civil Ruling no. 279/28.06.2016 remains definitive by the fact of not being challenged by complainant, the Cluj-Napoca Child Emergency Hospital. Case no. 5 I. The subject-matter of the case: In the petition filed with NCCD no. 4773/13.07.2015 it is shown that the Oradea Local Council decision draft on naming the bridge between King Ferdinand I Square and Union Square as “Saint Ladislau Bridge” was rejected by the defendant. The complainants see the rejection as discriminatory, while other names such as “Dacia”, “Decebal”, “Ovid Densusianu”, “Carol I”, “Mareșal Constantin Prezan” have been approved. Legal representation of the interests of the R.N.C.C.D 37  II. NCCD Solution After analysing all the documentation in the file, expert documentation (hearings, viewpoint requests), the NCCD Steering board ruled that “The fact that the naming of “St. Ladislau Bridge” was rejected because the bridge connects Union Square with Ferdinand Square and has to create the idea of a union” while other bridge names were approved (“Dacia”, “Decebal”, “Ovid Densusianu”, “Carol I”, “Marshall Constantin Prezan”) is discriminatory pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 of Government Ordinance no. 137/2000;” III. Judicial control applied to NCCD Solution no. 568/08.10.2014 issued in the case file no. 203/2014 In the proceedings initiated with the Oradea Appeal Court - Section VIII Contentious Ad- ministrative and Fiscal Matters, the complainant, the Bihor County Prefect, summoned the Romanian National Council for Combating Discrimination to trial, requesting the court to accept its action and cancel the challenged NCCD Solution. III. 1. Summary of criticisms by the complainant, the Bihor County Prefect: • The Council adopted the challenged decision on 20.01.2016, more than 180 days since the fact has been reported. • The NCCD resolution would be groundless and illegal. III. 2. NCCD Abstract of Defence: As per the object of the cause, we note that while names for 5 bridges were approved: („Da- cia”, „Decebal”, „Ovid Densușianu”, „Carol I”, „Marshall Constantin Prezan”), the naming of “Bridge Saint Ladislau” was not approved, thus presuming a differentiation between names seen as linked to the history and culture of the Romanian community and the naming pro- posal seen as linked to the history and culture of the Hungarian community (community forming 23.07% of the local people in Oradea). The fact of discrimination is determined by the existence of a criterion and there has to be a causality report between this criterion and facts signalled. The rejection itself obviously shows that the issue resulted from the fact that Saint Ladislau is not a character linked to the Romanian culture. A fact can be seen as discriminatory if it touches a right, any of the rights guaranteed by international treaties ratified by Romania or endorsed by national legislation. A statement according to which a name given after a Hungarian personality affects the idea of union is due to impact dignity rights as it creates a hostile environment against this com- munity. The union was not achieved in view of excluding Hungarians from everything that the Romanian state stands for, its culture, etc. More than this, the king of Hungary was not the king of Hungarians but also the king of Romanians who lived within the state, as king Ferdinand I (Ferdinand Viktor Albert Meinrad von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen) was not only the king of Romanians but also of the Hungarians after World War I. Permanently opposing 38 N.C.C.D. | Activity Report | 2016  Hungarians and their culture to Romanians, as majority, was along history and still is likely to impact the right to dignity, both that of minority Romanians and of minority Hungarians. The unfavourable decision of naming cannot be considered as having effects, though the Oradea Local Council later on took the right decision. The effect was that of creating frustration in the Hungarian community against the repre- sentative of the Romanian government. Therefore, the unfavourable decision against naming the “Bridge St. Ladislau” was rejected because the bridge connects Union Square with Ferdinand Square and has to create the idea of a union” while other bridge names were approved (“Dacia”, “Decebal”, “Ovid Densusianu”, “Carol I”, “Marshall Constantin Prezan”) is discriminatory according to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 of Government Ordinance no. 137/2000, as it represents a differentiated treat- ment and exclusion on ethnic grounds resulting in the restriction of using the right to dignity. III. 3. Court Ruling: The civil ruling no. 182/22.09.2016 of the Oradea Appeal Court - Section II Contentious Administrative and Fiscal Matters, dismissed as groundless the request of the complainant, the Bihor County Prefect Institution to cancel the NCCD Solution no. 58/20.01.2016 and integrally endorsed the administratively legal act issued by the NCCD as justifiable and legal. On the date of this Report, the case is undergoing filter judging by the High Court of Cassa- tion and Justice - Contentious Administrative and Fiscal Matters Section, as a result of the complainant’s recourse. Report on the activity of the Inspection Service in 2016 Pursuant to the provisions of Art. 41 par. (1) of the internal Procedure for solving petitions and referrals, “the file owner disposes upon investigating, if case, after studying the petition and proofs submitted”. Therefore, the file under investigation, accompanied by the resolu- tion of the file owner, is sent to the Inspection Service within the Legal Department in view of checking some unclear aspects and collecting data, witness statements and evidence necessary for solving the situation. After the control, the investigation team writes a report accompanied by the documentation resulting from the control. Statistical data on files investigated by the Inspection Service in 2016 In 2016, the Steering board submitted 22 files to the Inspection Service. In view of observing the resolutions of file owners and achieving the control objectives, 30 investigations were conducted (some files required several trips), out of which 19 in Bucharest and Ilfov county, 3 in the North-West Region 2 in Cluj county and 1 in Bihor), 2 in North-East Region 1 in Iasi county and 1 in Bacau), 2 in South-East Region 1 in Buzau county and 1 in Constanta), 1 in Muntenia-South Region (Călărași county), 1 in Oltenia-South-West Region (Olt county), 1 in Legal representation of the interests of the R.N.C.C.D 39  West Region (Arad county) and 1 in Centre Region (Mureș county). Out of the 22 verified files, in 20 (91% of the total), the alleged fact of discrimination took place in urban areas and the rest of 2 (9%) in rural areas. in 13 files (54%), the defendant was a legal entity, and in 11 (46%) 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 7 (31%), disability 5(23%), nationality 4(17%), sexual orientation 2(9%), age 1(4%), political beliefs 1(4%), others 1(4%), no criteria 1(4%), - (one of the files had two criteria). Due to lack of human resources within NCCD, the Inspection Service was requested to centralize files with contraventional fines and monitor whether the respective files were challenged, in view of endorsing them. In case of the non-challenged files, the Inspection Service communicated to competent fiscal authority, for the purpose of enforcement, the contraventional fines issued by the NCCD Steering board. Report on the 2016 activity of the Territorial Department Structures MUREȘ TERRITORIAL OFFICE Between January and November 2016, 69 hearings were granted to people interested by the NCCD activity at the level of Mureș Territorial Office. Out of the 69 people, 22 decided on filing petitions with NCCD, that is 31% of the total num- ber of people. Criteria and fields upon which the NCCD territorial representative provided expert legal counsel: a. Criteria: religion, age, gender, disability, ethnic origin, social status, disadvantaged category; b. Fields: access to employment and profession, access to public premises, access to public services, personal dignity etc. Between January 1, 2016 and November 1, 2016, 700 pieces of news published by local media were selected to contain keywords from the NCCD fields of activity: discrimination, racism, Ethnic origin, gipsy, gay, segregation, handicapped, disabilities, AIDS, religion, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, age, Islam, women, immigrant, refugee, homophobia, minorities, Nazism, rights, bigotry, harassment, differentiated treatment, stereotype, human rights. The cooperation with public authorities, legal entities and people in view of preventing and eliminating all forms of discrimination and promoting NCCD at local level was ensured by the participation to various meetings, conferences, seminaries, jointly organized with the local public authorities and entities involved