Vezi raport EN

formulated in his capacity of representative of the Parliament. The Committee set down that the statements under analysis emphasize references to persons in which a distinction is made on the criterion of ethnic origin. The assessment, approach and presentation of the people's situation is diametrically opposite, thereby infringing the dignity of persons belonging to the Roma community. On the other hand, the Committee set down that the statements were made as a senator, as a representative of a political party within a radio broadcast of a political nature, being restricted to supporting the political platforms of parties, thus it was not decided to apply a contraventional sanction. Through decision no. 9 of 17.01.2006, the Committee set down that the notified deeds cumulatively meet the elements of direct discrimination (art. 2 par. 1 and 3 and art. 19 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished). 150. Statements. Racial origin. Colour. Personal dignity. N.I.C complained about the statements made by the building manager to her husband, Mr. N.A. In a discussion in which there was a witness, a co-habitant with Ms. N.I., the building manager used insulting words against the husband of the petitioner, such as " crow fallen from the tree who came to establish order in his building" or "this nigger came to establish order in my building". Following the investigations and affirmative statements of the parties that there was a verbal conflict with racist meaning from Mr. S.I., through decision no. 42 of 09.02.2006, the Committee ascertained that the statements in question are a direct discrimination and they offend personal dignity. Also, it was decided to sanction the defendant by warning (art. 2 par. 1 and art. 19 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished). 151. Press articles. National origin. Lipovans. Ukrainians. Personal dignity. D.N. complained about the publishing of certain articles which concern his situation or that of Romanian citizens of Ukrainian nationality which use defamatory statements or comments. The articles entitled: „C.I. accuses N.M. of murder”, „C.I. sued the poet N.D. for slander”, „After elections: from animal to a people of jerks is just a step" comprise, among others references like: „A Lipovan or an Ukrainian RO - Piaţa Valter Mărăcineanu 1-3, sector 1, Bucureşti, Tel / fax 021-312.65.78/79/85 40 „building trust in human rights” www.cncd.org.ro  „protecţie efectivă a drepturilor omului” or a Kalmyk from Iasi (…), a double for “marcutizaţi” like them who speak and write the Kalmyk language at home, a Lipovan animal, this person who is from a violent minority, a Lipovan from Northern Moldavia, a second hand minority”. Analyzing the articles and charged statements, through decision no. 46 of 19.01.2006, the Committee set down that these have a discriminatory nature, resulting in offending the personal dignity, based on national origin. The defendant of this case was sanctioned by warning. (art. 2 par. 1 and 3 and art. 19 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented). 152. Education. Segregation. Ethnic origin. Roma. NCCD was self-notified following the publishing of a press article reporting on the establishment of separate classes for Roma children in a school in Tulcea county. Following the investigations, it was found that the distribution of Roma children was uneven, with imbalances between the majority children and minority Roma children. The parents of Roma children expressed their discontent regarding the situation generated by the management of the school and as a result of defective management, the school director was dismissed. The Committee set down that through the measures taken by management, by establishing separate classes, the Roma children were disfavoured and thus an indirect discrimination occurred. Through decision no. 75 of 02.03.2006, the Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are discrimination and it decided to sanction the management of the school by warning. (art. 2 par. 2, art. 2 par. 3 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented). 153. Tenancy. Structure building. Ethnical origin. Pro Europa League, Miercurea-Ciuc Office complained about the existence of a concrete wall on street Varadi Jozsef of Sf. Gheorghe, built at the end of the 80s, which separates persons who live in the two buildings built in that area of the town, namely Romanians and Hungarians from Roma. The City Hall argued in favour of maintaining the position of the wall, with the purpose of maintaining peace and security for the inhabitants of neighbouring buildings. After investigating the notified issues and following the presentation of the contradictory allegations of the parties, the Committee retained that the purpose of building a concrete wall was to separate the majority population from the Roma citizens from the area. Through decision no. 108 of 28.02.2006, the Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are direct discrimination and the presence of the wall which separated the buildings in question could offend the dignity of persons based on ethnic origin. NCCD recommended that the defendant undertake all measures to eliminate the ascertained discriminatory situation (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented). 154. Education. Teaching methodology. Capacity certificate and school graduation. Equality. National minorities. Hungarians. H.P. and others, the Hungarian Civic Union, Commission of Parents of Mikes Kelemen High School, the Parliamentary Group of UDMR (Union of Democrat Magyars of Romania) from the Chamber of Deputies complained about the methodology of teaching Romanian language for the members of national minorities and regarding the capacity and baccalaureate exams compared to the pupils who attend Romanian language teaching schools. Setting down the aspects notified by the parties and the statements of the Ministry of Education, the Committee appreciated that the pupils belonging to national minorities and the majority ones are in sensibly different situations in the educational process. The pupils belonging to national minorities are not native speakers of the Romanian language and outside the educational system, they have no possibility to exercise and use the official language like the citizens native speakers of Romanian language. Taking into account the results and statistics which show a low average of passing the exam among pupils belonging to national minorities, it is found that there can be negative consequences and it is necessary to establish an optimum methodology of teaching Romanian language to national minorities and of assessing their knowledge. Through decision no. 126/05.05.2006, the Committee recommended that the Ministry of Education set up a specialized commission to draw up proposals of measures to provide the learning of the official language of the state under equality conditions for Romanian citizens belonging to national minorities. (art. 16 par. 1 of the Constitution in conjunction with art. 120 par. 1 of Law no. 84/1995). 155. Musical composition. Ethnical origin. Roma. Personal dignity. The Press Monitoring Agency and Romani Criss complained about the lyrics of a song composed by a festivity music interpreter. The chorus of the song was broadcasted in the press, on the website of Gazeta Sportului and on various TV stations. In essence, the song includes references to the ethnical affiliation of the Roma community, using phrases like "crow”. The defendant showed that this phrase did not refer to the Roma group, but to the whole gallery of the football club Rapid Bucuresti. Through decision no. 168 of 07.07.2006, the Committee ascertained that the lyrics of the song broadcasted on various TV stations have a discriminatory content, based on ethnic origin and could result in offending the dignity of Roma origin persons. In this case the contraventional sanction was not decided, considering the lack of public character, in first instance of broadcasting the song. The Committee decided to issue a recommendation to the defendant (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented). RO - Piaţa Valter Mărăcineanu 1-3, sector 1, Bucureşti, Tel / fax 021-312.65.78/79/85 41 „building trust in human rights” www.cncd.org.ro  „protecţie efectivă a drepturilor omului” 156. Public statements. Association with ethnic origin. Roma. Personal dignity. NCCD was self-notified regarding the statements of Mr. C.N. made in the press against Mr. M.V: (…) I don't think that a crow, namely M.V. can be a spokesman for our party (…)”. The defendant showed that the use of the term „crow” was unfortunate, as the idea he wanted to express is that a person who „migrates” cannot subsequently become a spokesman of the party, without harming its image”. The Committee set down that through the statements in question are implicitly made distinctions on the criterion of ethnic origin by association. The person subject to the statements in question enjoys fame in the public and political life and regarding his possible ethnic affiliation, he did not consider it was necessary to justify it, despite speculations published in the press. It is everyone's right to self-identify as belonging to an ethnic or national group and others have no prerogative to acknowledge that a person belongs to a certain ethnic group or another. On the other hand, in the public space, the use of the phrase „crow” is obviously associated with ethnic, racial affiliation or colour of certain categories of persons. In its case- law, NCCD found that the use of this phrase offends personal dignity, based on ethnic origin and constitutes discrimination. Through decision no. 251 of 07.06.2006, the Committee set down that the notified deeds are direct discrimination and through the effect generated they offend personal dignity (art. 2 par. 1 and art. 19 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented). 157. Articles. Statements. Ethnic origin. Roma. Personal dignity. Romani Criss complained about the content of some articles posted on the website of Noua Dreapta, considering that that they promote a behaviour which aims to offends dignity and create a degrading and offensive environment against the Roma minority. The defendants did not formulate points of view. The Committee set down that through the articles mentioned the persons belonging to the Roma community are generically classified as violent, aggressive, illiterate, offenders, etc, identifying the Roma community as a whole with Mafia clans, with prostitution, usury, drug trafficking and other illegal and anti-social activities, inciting to racial hatred. It was set down that through the expression used in the articles, personal dignity was offended, based on ethnic origin. Through decision no. 271 of 12.09.2006, the Committee set down that the notified deeds are direct discrimination and it decided to sanction Mr. T.I. by fine (1000 RON) and Mr. N.C. (1500 RON), Mr. P.V.M. by warning and it also sanctioned Noua Dreapta organization, through representative for publishing on its website articles with discriminatory content, by fine (2000 RON). (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3, art. 19 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented). 158. Access to goods and services. Real estate ads. Ethnic origin. Roma. Romani Criss complained about the publishing on the internet, on advertising websites or specialized newspapers, to the section real estate ads, rent or sale of houses of certain ads referring to ethnic origin. The ads regarding the renting or selling of spaces or houses comprised references to the condition of buildings, namely „Building without Roma” or „ peace without Roma” or renting interdictions „no Roma”. The defendant endeavoured to eliminate ethnic references. Through decision no. 306 of 14.11.2006, the Steering Committee found that the ads had a discriminatory nature based on ethnic origin and it recommended that further efforts be made to avoid the publishing of this kind of ads on the site (art. 2 par. 1 and 3 and art. 19 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished). 159. Statements. Ethnic origin. Roma. Personal dignity. B.A., local counsellor, representative of Roma complained about the fact that one of his colleagues, V.E. insulted him, using terms like „crow” „stupid Gypsy”, „animal”, etc. within a meeting attended by several people. The defendant denied the allegations in question, still admitting that he would have said „we are worse than the Gypsies” because of repeated quarrels. Following the investigation and the statements of persons attending the session in question, the Committee ascertained that the statements were alleged by the defendant. The terms used for based on and promoted stereotypes and prejudices about the Roma ethnic group and their use in the public space generated a hostile, degrading and offensive image of it. Through decision no. 309 of 14.11.2006, the Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are direct discrimination and it decided sanctioning by warning (art. 2 par. 1 and 3 and art. 19 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished). 160. Access to goods and services. Prohibition. Instruction to discriminate. Ethnic origin. Roma. Romani Criss complained about Mr. B.N. being refused to be served in a bar because of his membership to the Roma group. In this regard, it was shown that at the bar entry a notice was posted which contained the following: „pupils, minors, Roma, homeless will not be served in this bar”. The Committee retained that in this case a restriction was imposed related to the membership of the Roma group of one person and the notice posted at the bar entry is an instruction to forbid access to the bar and refusal to provide services, which constitute direct discrimination. Through decision no. 317 of 28.11.2006, the Committee set down that the notified deeds are discrimination deeds and it decided to sanction the defendant company by fine amounting to 1000 RON (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 2, art. 10 lett. f, art. 19 of G.O. no. 137/2000 subsequently amended and supplemented). RO - Piaţa Valter Mărăcineanu 1-3, sector 1, Bucureşti, Tel / fax 021-312.65.78/79/85 42 „building trust in human rights” www.cncd.org.ro  „protecţie efectivă a drepturilor omului” XII. Ascertaining solutions issued in 2007 161. Access to public interest information. National origin. Language. Romanians. The Civic Forum of Hungarians from Harghita and Covasna complained about the editing and publishing by the City Hall of Sf. Gheorghe, from public funds and only in the Hungarian language of a monthly public information magazine. They consider that the Romanian citizens in the city were deprived of their right of access to public information and the possibility to be informed on the activity and decisions adopted by the authorities of the local Government. The defendant showed that the public information included in the magazine can also be accessed on the webpage of the authority and through the weekly conferences of the mayor. The Steering Committee set down that the magazine published in Hungarian language includes, besides Decisions of the Local Council Sfântu Gheorghe, other public interest information. In the case it was set down that a distinction was made between persons in comparable situations, Romanian citizens of Romanian nationality and Romanian citizens of Hungarian nationality by which is perturbed the right of access to public interest information. Through decision no. 26/09.02.2007, the Committee ascertained the existence of a direct discrimination deed and it decided the sanctioning by warning, to issue a recommendation in order to endeavour to publish the magazines in a bilingual version (art. 2 par. 1 and 3 of G.O. no. 137/2000, on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination, republished). 162. Statements. Ethnic origin. Roma. Personal dignity. Romani CRISS, The European Forum of Roma and Travellers complained about the statements made by President T.B. against journalist A.P. „Hey, chick, don't you have anything to do today?" and "How aggressive was this stinking gypsy". With regard to the statements which refers to ethnic origin, the Committee retained that the phrases forming the content of the statement are offensive per se and have a humiliating effect, being an insulting appreciation tightly related to a stereotyped perception associated to an ethnic group, i.e. the Roma, similarly to generalized subjective perceptions of discriminatory nature, the kind with which this ethnic group is associated. The Committee considered that the decision to issue a private conversation falls within the right of information as part of the freedom of expression, to the extent the content of the private conversation is of public interest. The Committee did not question the good faith of T.B., but it found that the use without intention of language with discriminatory effects in the private space could have negative effects in the society by generating and unfair or degrading treatment for a community, when these formulations are made public. The Committee set down that the use of a language with discriminatory effects in the private space, without intention to discriminate, but that is subsequently made public has negative effects in a society in which the image of persons belonging to the Roma community is negative among the majority population. The Committee set down the application of t