Vezi raport EN

gation also shows that no clear measures are desired. The Steering board Resolution no. 292 of 06.04.2016 states therefore that the behaviour of 48 N.C.C.D. | Activity Report | 2016  the two defendant parties (active - the physician - and passive - the hospital) discriminated the patient and her mother because they were not able to obtain medical information on the health state of the patient already admitted to the hospital, as pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 4 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000. Not informing the minor patient and her mother - who did not understand medical language in Romanian - on the patient’s health situation, the proposed medical procedures, the poten- tial risks of every procedure, any 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, is in the Steering board’s opinion a fact of discrimination according to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 3, and Art. 10 letter b) of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000. A contraventional fine of Lei 2000 was thus imposed on the Cluj-Napoca Child Emergency Clinic Hospital and a fine of Lei 1000 was ruled in the case of the physician, according to the provisions of Art. 26 par. 1 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000. The obligation of publishing a summary of the resolution in local media was required (with the observance of the confidentiality of patient and witness identities) pursuant to the pro- visions of Art. 26 par. 2 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000. 7. Others (obligation to wear school uniform). Right to education The complainant, parent of school student M-J.C.I.M. claims provisions of Art. 112, 122 para- graphs 13 and 15, Art. 146 par. 4 of the organizational rules of gymnasium school no. 49 as discriminating, together with the provisions of Art. IV.1 letter n) of the Educational contract, provisions which led to the obligation to wear school uniforms within the Gymnasium School no. 49 from Bucharest and of enforcing sanctions for non-compliance. The Steering board notes the defendant shows that the measures taken in view of introduc- ing school uniforms is justifiable as it aimed at increasing the safety in schools, at wearing distinctive markings for school students, decent clothing, but it retains for further analysis applicable sanctions for non-compliance which might lead to possible drops in behaviour evaluations for the students and even to the loss of scholarships. The Steering board also notes that the provisions according to which the lack of school uniform is sanctioned with drops in behaviour evaluations and, if case, with temporary or permanent loss of scholarship, is disproportionate as compared to the social effects it might have. Guilt cannot devolve upon school students or the parents with a financial situation which does not allow for the purchase of a school uniform. The Steering board notes that, although the measure of introducing school uniforms is legitimate, sanctions imposed for non-compliance create a discriminating effect against the disadvantaged category of students coming from within financially impoverished families, which also led to the conclusion that the measure is disproportionate against the reasons behind. The Steering board Resolution no. 22 of 13.01.2016 acknowledges that the circumstances described represent facts of indirect discrimination pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 3 corroborated with Art. 4, Art. 10 letter h), Art. 11 par. 1 of the Government Ordinance Examples of the Council Steering board’s case law 49  no. 137/2000, as republished. In what concerns non-criminal sanctions, the Steering board imposed a contraventional fine of Lei 1000 on the defendant together with the obligation of publishing a summary of the present decision in the media pursuant to the provisions of Art. 26 par. 2 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000. 8. Disability (autism and hyperactivity disorder) Right to education The complainant’s petition refers to the discrimination, from the part of the school tutor, against her son who was diagnosed with autism and hyperactivity disorder. The complainant sees as discriminating the fact that the tutor has a different attitude towards her son, by the fact of considering that the latter needed be enrolled in a special school and not follow the classes of a regular school. The Steering board retained the points of view of the defendant parties by which the parties acknowledge the existence of issues in the classroom with respect to the complainant’s son and his adaptation to that environment; the parties seem to suggest that the child’s caretaker is the sole responsible. The Steering board considers that the refusal to adapt the school to the disabled child’s needs as well as the methods used by the defendant parties in view of integrating the complainant’s son effected in restraining his rights and represent a fact of harassment pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 5 of the GO 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as republished. The Steering board appreciates that the alleged differentiated treatment was based on the diagnosis of the complainant’s son, that of autism and hyperactivity disorder. The Steering board Resolution no. 455 of 06.07.2016 states that the claimed facts represent a differentiated and discriminatory treatment pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 5 of the GO 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as repub- lished. In what concerns the non-criminal sanctions, the Steering board ruled on imposing a non-criminal warning against the defendant parties. 9. Ethnic origin (Roma people). The right to personal dignity The petitioner reports the publication of discriminating advertisements on www.publi24. ro. The petitioner sees it as discriminating the fact that site administrators did not take any appropriate measures to eliminate such ads. The Steering board notes that the ads were publicly posted on the defendant’s Web site and prejudices the right to personal dignity while creating a hostile, degrading and humiliating environment for the gypsy ethnic group. The provisions of Art. 15 of the Government Ordi- nance no. 137/2000 also apply. The Steering board Resolution no. 544 of 31.08.2016 states that the claimed facts represent facts of discrimination pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1, 2 and Art. 15 of the GO 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as republished. The Steering board ruled on imposing a contraventional fine of Lei 14,000 on the defendant SC Russmedia Press SRL, that is Lei 2,000 for each discriminatory ad, pursuant to the pro- visions of Art. 26 par. 1 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000. 50 N.C.C.D. | Activity Report | 2016  10. Disadvantaged category (candidate height). Right to education The petition subjects a minimum height condition of 1.7 m for boys and 1.65 m for girls upon the admission to the Târgu Ocna National School for Penitentiary Agents. The complainant considers such condition as a fact of discrimination. The Steering board considers that, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 4 letter f) of the Justice Minister Order no. 2412/C/2013 on the approval of the Methodology for the or- ganization and deployment of the admission contest for the Târgu Ocna National School for Penitentiary Agents, imposing a minimum height condition of 1.7 m for boys and 1.65 m for girls for the contest candidates harms the candidates’ right to education. The Steering board notes that the treatment mentioned is based on candidates’ height, that is a minimum height of 1.7 m for boys and 1.65 m for girls. Taking into account the pro- visions of Art. 11 par. 1 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000, the Steering board considers that the complainant falls under the disadvantaged category, that is the peti- tioner is obviously in a situation of inequity as compared to the majority of candidates, as candidates who measure less than the minimum height imposed by the Ministry of Justice norm are denied the right to education. The Steering board Resolution no. 595 of 28.09.2016 states that the claimed facts rep- resent a differentiated and discriminatory treatment pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1, Art. 6, Art. 11 par. 1 and 2 of the GO 137/2000 on the prevention and punish- ment of all facts of discrimination, as republished. In what concerns the non-criminal sanctions, the Steering board ruled on imposing a non-criminal warning against the defendant parties. 11. HIV. The right to personal dignity The petitioner’s complaint points to the communication of a confidential diagnosis in a loud voice. The petitioner considers it a fact of discrimination that the defendant communicated the diagnosis in a loud voice and was overheard by other patients. The complainant went to the Galati Medical Expertise and Working Ability Recovery Commission, cabinet 1 of defendant 2. After a quick establishment of the degree, he was invited outside by the defen- dant 2 and told to wait for the Decision to be issued. The complainant asked “why does he not have a definitive Decision, taking into account that his immunology status is C3 and he should be issued a non-revisable Decision”. The question was overheard by the defendant 2 who answered in a loud voice, people hearing her in the hallway: “What does he want? A permanent one? I cannot grant a permanent one for AIDS, I can only grant one for Degree 1. You should get it from the PERMANENTLY HANDICAPPED, I cannot do it.” The hallway was silent and patients waiting outside started whispering and looking at the door to see the “person who has AIDS”. The Steering board notes that disclosing the petitioner’s diagnosis breaches his right to per- sonal dignity. The Steering board notes that the HIV infection criterion is the reason of the attitude claimed. The Steering board Resolution no. 617 of 05.10.2016 states that the claimed facts represent a differentiated and discriminatory treatment pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 and of Examples of the Council Steering board’s case law 51  Art. 15 of the GO 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as republished. In what concerns the non-criminal sanctions, the Steering board ruled on imposing a non-criminal warning against the defendant 2 and recommended her to observe the confidentiality principle in the future. 12. Age, gender. The right to work The petitioner points to discrimination in maintaining the employment status of women researchers, originating in the different retirement ages unlike in the medical or educational system. The petitioner considers a fact of discrimination that a male colleague was allowed to continue working although he is 65 while she was no longer allowed to work although she is only 60. The Steering board notes that the dismissal of the work continuation request of the petitioner and the acceptance of a similar request from a male colleague is based on the retirement age, directly connected to the gender of the two persons, that is the female petitioner and her male colleague. The Steering board considers that by terminating the petitioner’s labour contract her right to work is infringed. The Steering board Resolution no. 762 of 29.11.2016 states that the claimed facts repre- sent a differentiated and discriminatory treatment pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1 and of Art. 7 letter a) of the GO 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as republished. In what concerns the non-criminal sanctions, the Steering board ruled on imposing a non-criminal warning against the defendant parties. 13. Facts of discrimination against gypsies by associating them with the idea of theft The Romanian National Council for Combating Discrimination was notified by the Amare Romentza Rromani Centre on the following public statements in the Morning ZU radio show on June 16, 2015, 08:50, about the Romani Language Days: “a ciordi” is a synonym of “a mangli”. The petitioner considers that the Romani language has thus been pre- sented as a language of thieves and that gypsyes were associated with the idea of theft. The defendant disagrees with the discrimination charges and states that the statements were part of a humoristic moment with no intended purpose of generating conflicts of negative attitudes and that they do not contain any references to any characteristic of the Romani language. The Steering board Resolution no. 97/03.02.2016 notes the existence of a differentiated and discriminatory treatment on the basis of Ethnic origin 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 dis- crimination, as republished (unanimously voted), and disposed that the defendant be fined with a warning. The Romanian National Council for Combating Discrimination also obliges the defendant part to publish the summary of the current decision, excluding the personal data, into a national newspaper. 52 N.C.C.D. | Activity Report | 2016  14. Conditioning the acceptance of a candidate on a job position on “higher long term education of technical profile” and job seniority of at least 2 years in the field of education The petition filed by T.A., the petitioner, with the Romanian National Council for Combat- ing Discrimination on 09.09.2015 concerned the restriction of the right to apply for a job opening. The defendant published in local media a job opening announcement within the Procurement and Public Acquisitions Office, potential candidates being required to meet the conditions of “higher long term education of technical profile” and at least 2 years seniority in a job within the profile of education. The petitioner considers the educational criterion as discriminatory taking into account the employing office name and the contest study material; thus, he says, technical long term education graduates are favoured against economical long term education graduates. After analysing the announcement, the contest study material and the job responsibilities, the Steering board notes that the conditions (higher long term education of technical profile and at least 2 years seniority in a job within the profile of education) unjustly restrict the occupation of the respective opening. Due to the nature of specific professional activities, one can note that said conditions are not professional real and determinant requirements. After analysing the real situation and the corresponding legal provisions, the Steering board note that these conditions imposed by the employer are not professional real and determinant requirements, the object being illegitimate. The Steering board Resolution no. 216/16.03.2016 stated (unanimously voted by all members attending the meeting) that the situation falls under the provisions of Art. 2 par. 3 and par. 6 and of Art. 8 par. 2 of the GO 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all facts of discrimination, as republished. It has also been ruled (unanimously voted by all members attending the meeting) that the defendant be sanctioned with a contraventional fine of Lei 1,000. 15. Restraining access to education The Romanian National Council for Combating Discrimination opened an investigation by itself on the specific criteria for the enrolment of children in the primary education system, preschool year, criteria limiting the children’s access to the preschool year on the basis of their belonging to a certain social category. The management of the defendant high school stated that the list of criteria approved by the Steering board was forwarded to the Inspectorate, accompanied by the associated in- ter-institutional correspondence meant to achieve “as less discriminating as possible”. The Inspectorate calls for the provisions of Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 and requests the change of criterion 4 by adding brothers who did not graduate from that particular high school and, per the specific criteria established by the high school, states that they contain positive statements and do not include restrictions or limitations. Following the analysis of imposed criteria, the Steering board notes that defendant parties condition children’s access to the preschool year on the criterion of family relations (brothers, Examples of the Council Steering board’s case law 53  parents, grandparents, legal tutors who graduated from that high-school, have been or are teachers). The Steering board also states that such criteria are not necessary because they restrict access to education. The Steering board Resolution no. 258/30.03.2016 (unanimously voted by all members attend-