Vezi raport EN

„protecţie efectivă a drepturilor omului”

and it decided to issue a recommendation to the defendant (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 4 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

210. Employment conditions for filling a public office. Imposing the knowledge of Hungarian language. National affiliation. D.T. complained about the condition of knowing the Hungarian language in order to fill the position of Deputy Director of Division of People's Records. Given that the essential prerogatives of the public office do not involve activities of public relations, the Committee set down that the justification raised by the defendant is not reasonable for the purpose and nature of the job. Through Decision no. 347 of 23.06.2009, the Committee set down that the notified deeds constitute discrimination and decided to issue a recommendation to the defendant (art. 2 par. 1 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

XV. Ascertaining solutions issued in 2010

211. Access to places designed for the general public. Selection criteria. Admission card. Ethnical origin. Roma. C.N., I.G., S.A., P.M., C.A. complained about the fact that trying to enter into the premises of a club, persons with dark complexion of Roma origin were asked the admission card, while other persons were not asked such a card. The defendant showed that the said persons had an inappropriate behaviour and access to the club is done only based on card. He specified that there is a situation in which agents do not require the card, namely to loyal customers and their guests, for whose conduct the customers guarantee. The investigation team of NCCD found that on the outside façade of the building was displayed a poster with the following mentions: “we reserve the right to select our customers, thank you for being our customers, loyal customers can require member cards by submitting a copy of the identity card and a passport photo, the documents shall be handed in to the security personnel, new clients who wish to be members of the club must hand in to the security personnel the following documents: passport photo, copy of identity card, copy of workman's pass, original of criminal record, scanned finger-print.” The Committee of NCCD adhered to the opinion of the Ministry of Administration and Interior stating that the need to submit a card for access inside a club (the release of which is subject to presenting a copy of identity card and a

passport photo), without having an exclusive nature (considering that the acceptance of new members is admitted) may be justified by a legitimate aim. This may take the form of ensuring order and public peace or protecting property. The legitimate question which arises with regard to the conditions required by the defendant is to what extent a distinction is made between deeds which may be related to crimes in connection with public order or peace or the protection of property and deeds which are not related to public order (involvement in accidents by negligence, negligence at work, family abandonment, etc.). To what extent a distinction is made between persons who hold a workman's pass and persons who do not hold a workman's pass but undertake activities based on contracts regarding rights of intellectual property or on distinct services provision). To what extent a distinction is made between persons who have the finger-print available or not. These distinctions are relevant under the principle of equality in the access to goods and services provided to the public. Or, in the absence of objective criteria tightly related to the requirement of such conditions, there is room for arbitrariness in granting the admission card in practice. Under certain conditions, the non-granting of the card for deeds which are not connected with the protection of public peace or property of others or of persons who do not hold a workman's pass could have the

character of a social sanction, which could be regarded as excessive and inappropriate in a democratic society, in which access to goods and services is guaranteed by law. Subsequently the question is to what extent the requesting of additional special conditions (criminal record, workman's pass, finger-print) without clearly mentioning a specific and transparent purpose (such as its manner of assessment/evaluation) could objectively and non-discriminatorily materialize such a purpose. Or, insofar as a distinction of treatment is brought about based on arbitrary considerations, it cannot be retained that this would be objectively and reasonably justified in the light of the equality principle. Through decision no. 67/19.05.2010, the Committee set down that the stated deeds could presume that although an apparently neutral criterion was quoted (holding an admission card), in practice this led to the disadvantage of the two Roma persons in relation to other persons (Romanian nationality), without an objective justification and the methods of attaining the purpose stated were not proper, leading to indirect discrimination (art. 2 par. 3 and art. 10 lett. f of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

212. Access to places designed for the public. Conditions. Ethnicity. Roma. Mr. D.S. went together with 3 other persons in locality R. in order to go to the beach. On entering the pool, he was not allowed to go into on reason that he is dark-haired and he belongs to the Roma ethnic group. In this regard, the petitioner claims that he was invited to get out on reason that “others like us created problems and we don't belong to that place.” The representatives of the defendant showed that the

 RO - Piaţa Valter Mărăcineanu 1-3, sector 1,
  Bucureşti, Tel / fax 021-312.65.78/79/85                         53                „building trust in human rights”
               www.cncd.org.ro