Vezi raport EN

„protecţie efectivă a drepturilor omului”

comments (art. 2 par. 1 of G.O. no. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination, republished).

165. Access to goods and services. Prohibition. Instruction to discriminate. Ethnic origin. Roma. Romani CRISS complained about the fact that a group of persons of Roma origin was denied access in a discotheque. A group of five young Roma with a dark complexion and another two persons, also of Roma origin, but with a pale complexion wanted to enter into Bavaria club. The first group was stopped by the security personnel who told 5 young men that they cannot enter and asked their student cards. The two persons with a pale complexion entered into the discotheque without being requested to submit the student cards. As the members of the first group insisted to find the reason why their access is not allowed, the security personnel specified that "the owner supports racial hatred". Asking if this means that the Gypsies are not allowed to enter, the answer was affirmative. The Committee retained the breach of access to the public places due to affiliation with the Roma ethnic group, through the prohibition the Roma group was subjected to in comparison to the other youngsters, generating a disadvantageous situation. The differentiation was not objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the criterion on which it was based was ethnic affiliation. Through decision no. 307 of 28.09.2007, the Committee decided that the notified deeds are direct discrimination and it decided to sanction the defendant by warning (art. 2 par. 1, art. 10 and art. 14

of G.O. no. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination, republished).

166. Education. Segregation. Ethnic origin. Roma. Romani CRISS complained about the fact that within the high school, R., the Roma origin pupils were separated from the majority ones. In the school year 2003-2004, the County Inspectorate has established a class of learning only for Roma children under the management of the Special School. Subsequently, in the school years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 the establishment of classes only for Roma children was continued and 3 rooms were arranged for each class and a room for the kindergarten room. School no. 3 was merged in September 2006 with High School R and was administered by the latter. For pedagogical reasons and of peculiarity of children concerned, differences from educational, cultural perspectives, due to the principle of continuity in the class, the management of the school, in agreement with the teachers of the school decided that pupils of Roma origin of classes II, III and IV remain in their initial classes until the end of the primary cycle. The Committee set down the specific regulations of the Ministry of Educations that forbade the segregation of Roma children. It set down that in analyzing some specific situations, such as those regarding Roma pupils, one must take into account the specific interests of children, the educational process and non-discrimination principles. In this regard, it must be ensured a fair balance between the interests of the school and those of the pupils, but

pedagogical or continuity principles should not separate children of a certain ethnical origin, but ensure effective equality in the educational process. Through decision no. 338 of 03.09.2007, the Committee set down that the notified deeds, in this case the establishment of separate classes, their maintenance and displacement in the same structure in terms of ethnical composition, as regards the effect created assume a discriminatory treatment. The Committee recommended that the defendants endeavour to prevent and eliminate segregation according to the Order of the Minister of Education no. 1540 of 19 July 2007 regarding the prohibition of school segregation of Roma children (art. 2 par. 1 of G.O. no. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination, republished).

167. Economic activity. Roma. Impeding the legitimate commercial activity. S.C. Micii comercianţi complained that it is discriminated on the ethnical criterion by the Town Hall and the Local Council since, over a year they have been delaying assigning the surface that the 28 members of Roma origin together with other traders used at that time to carry out legal commercial activities. The defendant showed that the surface referred to by the petitioner is in the public domain and the refusal to lease the required surface is related to the crisis of parking places. Through decision no. 396 of 12.11.2007, the Committee set down that the notified deeds constitute indirect discrimination and it recommended the assignment of a proper space in order to carry out the trade activity for the Roma citizens (art. 2 par. 3, par. 4 in conjunction with art. 2 par. 1 of G.O. no. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination, republished).

168. Press article. Ethnic origin. Roma. Personal dignity. H.M., C.A. and Asociaţia Romilor Ursari complained about the statements of the author made in an article published in newspaper “Flacăra Iaşului” in which an anti-social behaviour is collectively assigned to „Gypsies”, about which, among others it is stated that they „infect cities” and are „abortions of society”. The Committee retained that the notified deeds infringe the right to dignity of persons belonging to the Roma community. Through decision no. 416 of 28.11.2007, the Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are discrimination deeds and it decided to sanction the defendant by warning (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 4, art. 15 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

  RO - Piaţa Valter Mărăcineanu 1-3, sector 1,
   Bucureşti, Tel / fax 021-312.65.78/79/85                       44                     „building trust in human rights”
                www.cncd.org.ro