Vezi raport EN

„protecţie efectivă a drepturilor omului”

178.     Education. Segregation. Ethnic origin. Roma. Romani CRISS complained about the separation of Roma children in 2
classes in the General School classes I-VIII K.M. and the establishment of a class exclusive for Roma children. The defendants
indicated measures which were taken in order to correct the situation subject to analysis. Following the analysis of the
documents of the file, the Committee found that the school made efforts to reduce school drop outs and ensure an
appropriate average level through inclusive education, but also considered that fact that the CSI (County School
Inspectorate) has recognized that Roma children were segregated. Through decision no. 330 of 27.03.2008, the Committee
ascertained that the constitutive elements of a direct discrimination deed were met and it recommended that the school
endeavour to desegregate classes formed of Roma children (art. 2 par. 1 and art. 2 par. 4 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

179.     Publication. National origin. Jews. Personal dignity. F.L. complained about the fact that his son was presented in a
local publication on the first page associated with an ultra-Orthodox Jew. In the following number of the publication, this was
associated with an officer wearing a Nazi uniform, named "the Dictator of the press" in conjunction with the title "Read in
the next number shocking revelations about how F. tried to send some journalists in the "camp". Through decision no. 338 of
04.06.2008, the Committee ascertained that the deeds presented in the local publication, Buletin de Tecuci are direct
discrimination, as they breach the right to dignity guaranteed by art. 15 of the persons belonging to the Jewish community
and it decided sanctioning by fine amounting to 1000 RON (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 4, art. 15 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

180. Access to goods and services. Refusal. Ethnic origin. Roma. Personal dignity. T.I. complained about the fact that he entered into the food store of defendant P.A. who forbade his access and addressed to him insulting expressions related to his ethnical affiliation. Thus, the petitioner claimed that the defendant attacked his son and nephew aged 8 and 9 years, addressing the following words: „F..you crows, get out!”. When asked by the petitioner what is the problem about the children, he answered: „So what if they are with you? All crows out! Me and my brother will do so as not to catch a Gypsy around here!”. Through decision no. 470 of 22.07.2008, the Committee set down that the deeds presented are direct discrimination in accordance with the provisions of art. 2 par. 1 and 4 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished, breaching the right to dignity of Roma origin persons, guaranteed by art. 15 of the Ordinance, at the same time breaching the right of access to public places according to art. 10 lett. f and art. 14 and it decided to sanction the defendant by contraventional fine amounting to 1000 RON. (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 4, art. 15, art. 10 lett. f and art. 14 of G.O. 137/2000, republished).

181. Access to goods and services. Refusal. Ethnic origin. Roma. Personal dignity. Romani CRISS complained about the fact that a group of young people (with dark complexion) were forbidden from entering in a discotheque due to their ethnical affiliation, while a group made up of 4 persons with a pale complexion (of Romanian nationality) were allowed to enter. The first group of young people (dark complexion) was stopped by the bodyguards and it was explained to them that they cannot enter the premises of the club since it was let for the entire night. After the young people addressed repeated questions, one of the discotheque's employees mentioned that the owner decided that darker people not enter into the disco and that the only Gypsy who is allowed to enter is Mr. F. Meanwhile the other group of people with pale complexion entered without experiencing problems. Through decision no. 509 of 03.09.2008, the Committee ascertained the existence of a discriminatory treatment (direct discrimination) according to the provisions of art. 2 par. 1 and 4 and it decided to sanction the defendant by a civil penalty amounting to 1000 lei (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 4, art. 10 lett. f of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

182.      Roma ethnicity. Discriminatory messages. N.D. complains about the statements taken by the defendant and
published in the local press, namely articles which refer to the ethnicity of the petitioner and lack of involvement in
community service, such as: "We do not want illiterate, drunken and Gypsies at the City Hall!”, „If you want to be led by a
Gypsy and a drunken, still vote the cross on the 15 June!!!", ‚Vote O.Z. if you do not want to be led by King Misu Scrap Iron!”.
Through decision no. 575 of 15.10.2008, the Committee ascertained that the notified deeds fall under the provisions of art.
2 par. 1 (direct discrimination) and it decided to sanction the defendant by warning (art. 2 par. 1 of G.O. no. 137/2000,
republished).

183. Regulatory provisions. Distribution of magistrates. Deciding between the positions of judge and prosecutor, at equal averages. National minorities. A.M. notified an alleged discrimination regarding the separation of candidates for the positions of judges and prosecutors based on ethnical affiliation. The petitioner argued that the application of art. 30 par. 6 of Law no. 303/2004 sets the prerequisites for a segregation of magistrates on ethnical grounds, limiting the rights of Romanian magistrates. The petitioner indicated that although the Romanian magistrates know a broadly used foreign language – English, French, etc. if they don't know languages of other cohabiting ethnic groups, they are discriminated and it

 RO - Piaţa Valter Mărăcineanu 1-3, sector 1,
  Bucureşti, Tel / fax 021-312.65.78/79/85                    47                    „building trust in human rights”
               www.cncd.org.ro