Vezi raport EN

in the field of human rights, in the county of Mureș. BUZĂU TERRITORIAL OFFICE In 2016, 30 hearings were granted to people interested in the NCCD activity at the level of Buzău Territorial Office. 40 N.C.C.D. | Activity Report | 2016  The issues reported varied, but most often they were related to discrimination at work, eth- nic origin, social inclusion, school discrimination, discrimination related to access to public premises. The six petitions that were filed related to: sexual harassment at work, ethnic origin, xeno- phobia, criminal conviction of the petitioner, social category. Over-the-phone advice was constantly granted, both in what concerns anti-discrimination legislation and specific procedures and certain cases being investigated by NCCD at the time (complainants asking for information on formal and procedural aspects, etc.). The NCCD local representative carried out various territorial activities, such as: • The “Road from discrimination to equality” campaign in schools and high-schools; • NCCD promotion tours within public administration and other local governmental institutions in Buzău county, in view of initiating partnerships on the prevention and fighting facts of discrimination; • The “What LABEL do you think you’re wearing” campaign, to also be held next year mainly in schools and high-schools: • Participating in various events organized both by the local public institutions and by NGOs. Student internships in 2016 Over the year 2016, the Legal Department - Legal, Administrative Law and Contracts Office, together with the Programs and International Affairs Direction within the Romanian National Council for Combating Discrimination provided internships for students of the following higher education institutions: Law Faculty, Political Sciences Faculty within Bucharest University, Legal and Administrative Sciences Faculty - “Dimitrie Cantemir” Christian University of Bucharest, Lumina University of South-Eastern Europe – Faculty of Political and Economic Sciences, University Titu Maiorescu – Faculty of Law, as well as for Master’s students from Bucharest University – Faculty of Political Sciences and the National School for Political and Administrative Studies – Faculty of Political Sciences. As part of this activity, the internship tutors from within the NCCD Legal Department pro- vided students with information on discrimination, discrimination types, the Romanian national anti-discrimination council’s organization and rules of functioning, responsibilities, petition resolution process, penalties, programs organized in view of preventing and fighting discrimination, as well as the procedure for appealing NCCD decisions in court. Students participating in the internship were offered the possibility to take part in the court meetings, together with the NCCD legal counsel, in trials on appealing NCCD decisions. The internship also included practical exercises so that students acknowledge negative effects of discrimination on people. Students who chose to broaden their knowledge on the functioning of discrimination prevention Legal representation of the interests of the R.N.C.C.D 41  and fighting mechanisms were delighted to discover, with the help of the counsel within the Programs and International Relations Division, responsible for internships, the cleverness and creativity of the prevention methods. After a psychological and socio- logical incursion in the field in order to define and describe the way discrimination works, basic concepts and their limits were examined - tolerance, human rights, equity, affirmative policies, rituals, traditions, freedom of speech, equal opportunities, freedom of speech, di- versity - noting both the complexity and possible changes of the sense of the discrimination concept in the globalization millennium. Several video documentaries were played in which the characters were part of vulnerable groups. Students were particularly attracted to the role of personal attitude in preventing discrimination, to the attitude sources of discrimina- tion and by discrimination effects. Role plays also helped them experience solidarity (as a positive effect of discrimination), get aware of the reasons of being educated, have common sense and good taste, as well as the need to act responsibly when facing the vicious circle of discrimination - the discrimination that leads to discrimination. Upon the end of the internship, participants received internship certificates from the NCCD attesting their interest in the field, institution and tutor teachings, the fact that they studied all necessary material and requested information they needed to help them grasping the complexity of the discrimination combat phenomenon. Distribution of 2016 investigations, by development regions 42 N.C.C.D. | Activity Report | 2016  Examples of the Council Steering board’s case laws  1. Equity in economic activities, employment and profession The petitioner, L.M., representative of S.E. Paroșeni Free Union, claims that, according to the provisions of the collective labour agreement, a fidelity bonus is not to be paid for certain employees for the period of time representing the sick leave months or for vacations that have been rescheduled, months in which the number of actual working hours is smaller than the scheduled work program. The NCCD Steering board Resolution 24 of 13.01.2016 noted that claimed facts represent discrimination pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 corroborated with Article 2 par. 6 and par. 7 letter c) of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000, as they state a difference or an exclusion on grounds of a sick leave or rescheduled vacation (depending on the reason for such rescheduling, it can either fall under the provisions related to sick leave, pregnancy leave etc.) aiming at, or resulting in, the confinement, elimination of acknowledgment, usage of, or benefiting from, the right to property under equal conditions, the right to benefit of the fidelity bonus. The Steering board ruled for a contraventional fine of Lei 2000 against the defendant, pur- suant to the provisions of Art. 26 par. 1 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000. 2. Ethnic origin, the right to personal dignity Petitioner associations claimed as discriminating the Bihor Prefect Office’s decision, through its representative Bihor County Naming Commission against the name of “St. Ladislau Bridge” while names such as „Dacia”, „Decebal”, „Ovid Densușianu”, „Carol I”, „Marshall Constantin Prezan” were approved. The Steering board notes the second defendant, an institution subordinated to the first defen- dant, ruled in favour of the proposed names for 5 bridges on 03.04.2015: „Dacia”, „Decebal”, Examples of the Council Steering board’s case law 45  „Ovid Densușianu”, „Carol I”, „Mareșal Constantin Prezan”, while deciding against the naming of “Bridge Saint Ladislau”, showing that the bridge “connects Union Square with Ferdinand Square and has to create the idea of an union”. Saint Ladislau was the King of Hungary be- tween 1077 and 1095, sanctified by the Catholic Church in 1192, and his tomb was relocated to Oradea after 1113. Therefore, the Steering board Resolution no. 58 of 20.01.2016 stated that, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000, the refusal of the name “Bridge Saint Ladislau” represents a fact of discrimination 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”) as it states an ethnic difference or exclusion resulting in hindering the exercise of the right to personal dignity. The defendants were requested to publish a summary of the NCCD Solution in local media, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 26 par. 2 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000/ 3. The capacity as complainant. Access to medical care. Direct discrimination. Victimization The complainants, B.L.I. and M.M.R., consider they have been discriminated by the fact of not being reimbursed the dental service expenses and by being excluded from health services lists of the medical unit, as well as by being victimized for having pressing criminal charges. The Steering board Resolution no. 68/27.01.2016 noted that complainants demanded the reimbursement of dental service expenses and, after taking the matter to court, asking for remedies, they have been excluded from the list of medical care services of the medical in- stitution subordinated to the ministry against which the charges were pressed. Therefore the Steering board ruled that the facts represent discrimination pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 corroborated with Art. 10 letter b) of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000, as they are an exclusion based on the capacity as complainant and on the basis of the belief criterion, resulting in the restraint of use and fair exercise of the right to access health services, a fact that is punished by a contraventional fine of Lei 2000, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 26 par. 1 corroborated with Art. 10 letter b of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000. 4. Language. Access to Public information The petitioner association sees as discrimination the fact that the Mayor of Cristuru Secuiesc issued a Hungarian-only publication („Keresztúri Kisváros”). The editor’s name is written right under the newspaper title: „Székelykeresztúr Város Önkormányzatának ingyenes, havi kiadványa”, along with the associated Web site keresztur.ro. In what concerns the right to public information access, the Steering board notes that the defendant created a difference between Hungarian-speaking people, who - aside from other means of access (petition to the defendant, Internet search) - are also offered a free monthly publication, and non-Hungarian-speaking people who are therefore not provided access to this means of information. 46 N.C.C.D. | Activity Report | 2016  The Steering board Resolution no. 180 of 02.03.2016 disposed that the editing of a Hungar- ian-only publication by the local public authorities represents a fact of discrimination pur- suant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 corroborated with Art. 10 letter h) of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 and imposed a non-criminal warning, pursuant to the provisions of Government Ordinance no. 2/2001, art. 5 par. 2 letter a), art. 6 and art.7. A recommendation was also issued to the defendant to remedy the situation by editing a bilingual publication containing public interest information no later than 3 months since the date the Steering board Resolution was granted enforcement power. 5. H.I.V. The right to education and the right to confidentiality of personal data The petitioner considers that he has been discriminated by the explicitly specified diagnosis of HIV in the medical certificate issued for the admission to the university, namely the note “H.I.V. under monitoring” under the category “suffers from”. The defendant, Ministry of Health, specified that “information on the HIV/AIDS status of a patient has to be commu- nicated among experts in the field”, the patient being required to inform doctors, including dental specialists. After examining the documents of the case, the Steering board issued the Resolution no. 235 of 23.03.2016 stating that issuing a medical certificate to the petitioner, to be used for purpose of admission exams to the university, without specifying if the patient can or cannot attend such exams but instead mentioning he is HIV positive represents a situation in which the said person might decide not to enrol to the university or to make public, with the breach of legal obligations clearly established by the defendant Ministry, his situation which is of no interest to people within the university but only to (medical) experts. Therefore the specification of HIV on a certificate necessary for the admission to the uni- versity represents a fact of discrimination pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 3 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 as the apparently neutral practice of filling in the “suffers from” category on the certificate disadvantaged the petitioner and thus affected his right to education and his right to confidentiality of personal data. The Steering board notes that the defendants (the clinic and the doctor who signed the cer- tificate) were passive parts and respectively active (Ministry of Health) in generating effects which unjustly discriminate a person upon admission to the university, and fall under the provisions of Art. 2 par. 4 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000, as follows: • Specifying the H.I.V. diagnosis on a medical certificate for the university admission exams represents a fact of discrimination pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 para- graphs 3 and 4 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000; a contraventional fine of Lei 5000 was imposed on the Ministry of Health, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 26 par. 1 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000; • The demand of specifying an HIV diagnosis on a medical certificate, the purpose of which was only to assess whether the petitioner was fit for university admission exams has a discrimination nature, as pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 paragraphs 3 and Examples of the Council Steering board’s case law 47  4 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000; a contraventional fine of Lei 5000 was imposed on the clinic which issued the certificate; the medic who signed the certificate was sanctioned with a non-criminal warning, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 5, par. 2 letter a) and Art. 6 and 7 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000. A recommendation was issued to the Ministry of Health in view of elaborating methodolog- ical norms requiring medical documents to be transmitted to units not of medical nature (schools, universities, employers etc.) to not bear H.I.V. diagnostics or other information of a personal nature not relevant to the matter (the case in point would have only required the document to mention whether the petitioner can or cannot attend the admission exams). 6. Ethnic origin. Access to medical care The Hungarian Democratic Union in Romania considers a fact of discrimination has occurred by not communicating the diagnosis in Hungarian for a minor patient to the parent and by the refusal of medical services (release of the patient from the hospital) on ethnic grounds. Following the examination of the file, the Steering board noted for further analysis the fact that the defendant medic did not offer the minor patient and her mother information on the health state of the patient in Hungarian language so that they understand the medical situ- ation, although they have provided a translator free of charge for the hospital. The hospital itself would have had the possibility to come with a translator (according to the statements of the defendant medic, 40% of the hospital employees are of Hungarian origin). In what concerns the facts of harassment, the Steering board noted that they have not been documented, witnesses only stating that the medic used an improper language and offering no details on what he said. The Steering board ruled that there is no conclusive evidence on the hypothesis that the behaviour of the patient (not speaking Romanian) or her mother’s (not bringing in a person who would be able to help with the translation) would have motivated the dismissal of the patient from the defendant hospital. The Steering board notes that the defendant hospital is an emergency medical unit where only emergencies are treated and the dismissal of the minor patient took place two days after the car accident she was involved in; any additional medical treatment the patient would have needed would not require her being admitted into that hospital. Therefore the Steering board saw fit that the burden of proof principle be applied, taking into consideration that the defendant hospital does not have an internal code of conduct on communicating with non-Romanian-speaking people; it is also relevant to the case that, although the hospital did not finish its internal investigation, it declared that the medic’s behaviour was regrettable but still did not represent a fact of discrimination. In the Steering board’s opinion, the defendant physician is guilty for not providing such communication, and the defendant hospital for not having proper procedures in place for situations in which patients do not understand medical terms in the Romanian language. The fact that the hospital prejudged the case before the end of the internal investi