Vezi raport EN

„protecţie efectivă a drepturilor omului”

language. It considers that the right of persons of a different ethnicity than Hungarian to participate to the event was restricted. The defendant considered that the treatment that gives to a group of persons additional rights based on national origin or other reasons cannot be considered as discriminatory to other persons and that nobody was excluded from this event. Advertising was done in Hungarian due to the fact that the event was designed for the Hungarians in the county that represent 74% of the population, but it also benefitted from strong mediation in Romanian language. The Committee found that the notified aspects were based on ethnic-national associations tightly related to actions and manifestations which could offend the dignity of some categories of citizens, based on their national affiliation, being disadvantaged through the fact that they could not acknowledge in their official language manifestations organized at the level of the local community, of public interest. Through decision no. 815 of 02.12.2008, the Committee found that the notified deeds are discrimination and it decided to issue a recommendation (art. 2 par.1 and 4, in conjunction with art. 15 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

188. Access to goods and services. Refusal. Ethnical origin. Roma. Personal dignity. P.C. and others, persons of Roma origin complained about the fact that their access is prohibited in several places opened for the public in the locality. Following the investigations made at various restaurants and cafe-bars mentioned in the complaint, the Committee set down that the access of the petitioners was forbidden to the restaurant Covorul Verde, Laguna and Club Megaloss based on ethnic origin. Through decision no. 856 of 18.12.2008, the Committee found the existence of a direct discrimination by prohibiting the access or serving the persons of Roma origin and it decided sanctioning by warning of the defendants. (art. 2 par. 1 and art. 10 lett. f of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

189. Access to labour. Conditions for filling a public office. Knowledge of Hungarian language. National origin. A.M. complained about the competing of 12 positions by the defendant (DGFP Harghita) and the publishing of notices in the local press. The conditions for filling the positions stipulated, among others, knowledge of the Hungarian language. Analyzing the documents of the case, the Committee ascertained that imposing the knowledge of the Hungarian language aimed at positions which related to both activities with the public and positions which did not suppose such an activity. The Committee considered that for the positions which do not involve activity with the public, the given condition is not objectively justified to attain a legitimate aim and the measure was not commensurate to the aim pursued in fact. Through decision no. 43 of 01.09.2008, the Committee set down that partly the notified deeds are direct discrimination and it decided sanctioning by fine amounting to 1000 RON of the defendant (art. 2 par. 1 and art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

190. Access to labour. Conditions for filling a public office. Knowledge of Hungarian language. National origin. D.T. complained about the conditions for filling the position of Director at the County Library, competed by the County Council Suceava, in this case imposing the condition to know the Hungarian language. According to the nature of the job duties, the Committee found that imposing that given condition is not objectively justified. Through decision no. 775 of 16.12.2008, the Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are direct discrimination and it decided sanctioning by warning of the defendant (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 5 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

XIV. Ascertaining solutions issued in 2009 191. Labour relationship. Local expert on Roma issues. M.S. complained about the suppressing and non-budgeting of the position of local expert on Roma issues in 2009. Although employed on a non-determined period, the local counsellors adopted a decision whereby they decided to suppress the position and implicitly not budget it. The Committee retained that through the governmental policy in the field of improving the Roma situations (G.D. no. 430/2001, subsequently amended and supplemented) it was provided to employ experts on Roma issues at local level. These measures took into account the different situation (socio-economic) of the Roma community towards the majority and pursued to strengthen the capacity of cooperation between authorities and the local community in order to improve Roma's living conditions. Considering that in this case it could not result that the purpose of these affirmative measures was attained at the level of the defendant local authority, the suppressing of the position, in the absence of objective and reasonable justifications had discriminatory consequences. In fact, the courts considered that the suppressing of the position was unlawful. Through decision no. 393 of 02.07.2009, the Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are discrimination and it decided to sanction the

defendants by warning (art. 2 par. 1, art. 2 par. 4 and art. 6 lett. a of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

 RO - Piaţa Valter Mărăcineanu 1-3, sector 1,
  Bucureşti, Tel / fax 021-312.65.78/79/85                          49              „building trust in human rights”
               www.cncd.org.ro