Vezi raport EN

of all facts of discrimination, as republished, and of Art. 10 par. 8 corroborated with Art. 6 par. 1 and 3 of Law 202/2002 on equal treatment between men and women, as republished, and imposed on the defendant S.C. Plafar Retail S.R.L. by its representative a contraventional fine of Lei 2000 pursuant to the provisions of Art.2 par. 11, Art. 26 par. 1 of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 modified and amended by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 19/27.03.2013, corroborated with Art. 8 of the Government Ordinance no. 2/2001 on the legal status of offences.

30. Differentiated Treatment. Disability The petitioner’s notification refers to a potentially different treatment in the case of the refusal, by the defendant, to allow the vehicle tax exemption for the complainant who was acting on behalf of the severely disabled child.

The defendant explains that, following the clarifications received from the line ministry, by means of the letter registered with no. 1661/4/8/2016, the institution had informed the petitioner acting on behalf of M. A. C., the severely disabled child, on the fact that they were allowed the exemption from the payment of the vehicle tax for the vehicle Hyundai Elantra.

In its Decision nr. 759/23.11.206, the steering board decided that a differentiated discrimi- nating treatment took place on grounds of disability, according to article 2 paragraph 1 and article 10 h) of the Government Decision 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all forms of discrimination, as republished (unanimity of votes) and ruled for a contraventional warning against the defendant, pursuant to article 26 of the Government Decision 137/2000, in conjunction with article 7 of the Government Decision no. 2/2001 on the judicial regime of contraventions, as further amended and supplemented; Recommends to the other party to show concern and resilience in order to take into consideration, in providing services to the citizens, all the relevant differences and all the appropriate measures to make sure that the available services are specifically afforded by all citizens.

31. Job advertisement. Access Restricted to Men. The petitioner referred to the fact that job advertisement with following contents was posted on Facebook: “Craiova English Schools employing a female MA/MSc student, Italian, French and/or English speaking, with a pleasant personality, convivial and patient, for children at school/day-care, or adults. The ideal candidate is a female, team-player and result-oriented student or MA/MSc student”.

He claims, at the same time, that several pictures were posted as well, showing little girls only.

The petitioner considers the respective job advertisement as discriminatory and asks the following question:

“Do men not have the right to work?

And what about men who teach foreign languages?

62                                                                                N.C.C.D. | Activity Report | 2016