Vezi raport EN

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