Vezi raport EN

„protecţie efectivă a drepturilor omului”

comes to a situation in which a person belonging to a national minority benefits of a privilege to the detriment of the majority. The Ministry of Justice mentioned that the provision in question is a separation criterion, additional, secondary of deciding between candidates who obtained equal average at the capacity certification, although these situations are rare in practice. The separation criteria are in sequence: the candidate should have worked at the court or prosecutor's office he chose and higher seniority in magistracy. Only if following the application of these two criteria candidates remain in equality, the third criterion will function, that of knowing the language of that minority. Through decision no. 578 of 27.08.2008, the Committee set down that the judicial proceedings in Romania take place in Romanian language and the parties are able to use their maternal language through a certified translator. The establishment of preferences, at equal averages for magistrates who know the language of a national minority has discriminatory effects in accordance with art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3 (art. 2 par and 3 of G.O. no. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination, republished).

184. Press article. Ethnic/national origin. Tatars/Turkish-Muslims. Personal dignity. A.A. and I.A. complained about the content of the article published by the defendant in a local newspaper, with the subtitle – „The Turkish – better than Hogea”. The article refers to the ethnical origin of the petitioner and was published an anonymous letter of a citizen that rhetorically asks the questions” „cannot be the Turkish replaced with a laborious and gifted Romanian…? It is considered that the article is based on the existence of a vexation regarding the initiative to place locally, where there is a significant Turkish population, of the bust of the reformer of modern Turkey. The Committee set down that the charged article expressly refers to the ethnical affiliation of the petitioner, and the designation of a third source to reinforce the opinions in the article, without making a dissociation, highlight discriminatory aspects. Thus, a person's ethnical affiliation cannot be regarded as relevant related to how a person exercises a certain function or prerogative, since between the competence and the incompetence and ethnical affiliation there cannot be a causality link. Through decision no. 613 of 13.11.2008, the Steering Committee ascertained that the notified aspects are discrimination (harassment) and it sanctioned the defendant by warning (art. 2 par. 5 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

185.     Education. Segregation. Special schools. Ethnic origin. Roma. Romani Criss complained about the placing of Roma
origin pupils in schools for children with special needs. It is shown that the Roma pupils represent a percentage of about 90%
of the school pupils in this case and they are enrolled in the institution because of their repeated years, without a special
need of these children. The Committee retained that in some cases, the parents of children turn up directly to the special
schools to enroll the children, given the facilities that the children enjoy. In practice, the system of assessment of pupils for
enrollment in special schools, the financial and material support given to children have discriminatory effects. Statistically, it
was found that the Roma pupils are the overwhelming majority of children in these schools, without existing, in all cases a
medical objective reason which could justify enrollment. Through decision no. 733 of 11.06.2008, the Committee decided
that the deeds presented in the petition are discrimination and it recommended that the Ministry of Education endeavour
to ensure the principle of the equality of opportunity in schools as well as to adopt measures in view of eliminating the
discriminatory treatment applied to Roma pupils who were displaced from the mass schools to special schools on grounds of
socio-economic needs (art. 2 par. 1,3 and 4 of G.O. no. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of

discrimination, republished).

186. Access to public interest information. National affiliation. Language. Romanians. D.T. complained about the fact that the internet page of the local public authority (Town Hall) comprises information of public interest only in Hungarian language and therefore persons of Romanian nationality who do not know Hungarian language have no access to information of interest to the local community. Referring to its case-law, the Committee set down that it issued a decision that there was discrimination through decision no. 26/09.02.2007 by which it ascertained that the publishing of information of public interest only in Hungarian language is discrimination and similarly, through decision no. 131/21.06.2007 that the publishing of information of public interest only in Romanian language is discrimination as regards access to these information. In this case, persons belonging to the Romanian community are discriminated compared to Hungarian citizens through the impossibility to ensure equal access to public interest information in Romanian language. Through decision no. 736 of 16.12.2008, the Committee ascertained the existence of a differentiated treatment (direct discrimination) and it recommended endeavouring to ensure the same information in Romanian language. (art. 2 par. 1 and 4 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

187. Local public authorities. Organization of events. National affiliation. Romanians. Personal dignity. The Civic Forum of Romanians complained about the activities organized by the County Council within the public events regarding „The meeting of Hungarians from Covasna everywhere” and development of promotional materials only in Hungarian

 RO - Piaţa Valter Mărăcineanu 1-3, sector 1,
  Bucureşti, Tel / fax 021-312.65.78/79/85                      48                    „building trust in human rights”
               www.cncd.org.ro