Vezi raport EN

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