Vezi raport EN

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 investigation 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