Vezi raport EN

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