Vezi raport EN

What if his son wanted to study foreign languages?

Would he try to talk his son out of it because he may be discriminated?

The defendant responds that the job advertisement about a female MA/MSc female student “with a pleasant personality, convivial and patient” hadn’t been meant to imply a state of men inferiority.

In its partnerships, Craiova day-care focused on the act of teaching to children’s best interest and not on men discrimination.

In addition, they say, the company was established and managed by a male person, with another male person employed under a non-term based contract.

Therefore, the gender requirement was out of question.

The complainant added to his point of view a request from the Parents and Teachers Associ- ation of the Tudor Vladimirescu Kindergarten 21, on behalf of which the job advertisement had been posted.

The steering board takes into account that the respective advertisement was the only one, among many others posted as part of a Facebook recruitment campaign, to have a discrim- inatory content, therefore it ruled for least severe penalty, namely a warning notice.

In its Decision no. 513/20.07.2016, the Steering board retained that the aspects in this case were an act of discrimination, pursuant to the provisions of article 2 paragraph 1 and article 8 paragraph 2 of the Government Decision 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all forms of discrimination, as republished; It decided to give a warning notice to Craiova English School, in line with the provisions of article 5 paragraph 2 a) of the Government Decision no. 2/2001 (6 votes for and 2 votes against, counting the members attending the meeting) and recommended the defendant to avoid, such action leading to discrimination in the future (unanimity of votes);

32. Access to economic services. Disability The petitioner, a person with a serious disability, filed against the female defendants who refused to hand him the digital bank card motivating that there was no holograph signature.

The defendants did not submit any point of view with respect to the aspects in the complaint before the date on which the case was settled.

In its Decision no. 111/10.02.2016, the Steering board ascertained the incriminated facts as an action of discrimination, pursuant to article 2 paragraph 1 and article 10 d) in conjunction with the provisions of article 15 of the Government Decision 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment of all forms of discrimination, as republished;

The Steering board decided for a contraventional fine of 40,000 lei to Păcurari Raiffeisen Bank Agency through a legal representative, for the facts incriminated by article 2 paragraph

Examples of the Council Steering board’s case law                                                    63