Vezi raport EN

„protecţie efectivă a drepturilor omului”

access of clients inside the pool is not restricted according to ethnical affiliation, but according to their attitude, given that the pool is close to two notorious neighbourhoods. Individuals known to be violent and uncivilized or who have bothered/threatened clients in the past are not allowed to enter inside the pool. The Committee retained in the case that the petitioner's claims that he never went to that pool until that moment were not disputed by the defendant. Also, the defendant showed no evidence to emphasize that the petitioner is a person who bothered or threatened clients inside the pool or had a violent and uncivilized behaviour. From this point of view, the prohibition imposed by the security guard, accompanied by the argument “others like you created problems” cannot be considered objectively justified, since it is based exclusively on an arbitrary assumption which infers that a certain category of persons have an anti-social behaviour per se. As the European Court of Justice established, to the extent 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. 105/09.06.2010, the Committee set down that the notified deeds lead to an indirect discrimination and it decided to issue a recommendation (art. 2 par. 3 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

213. Access to public administrative services. Setting of buildings. Memorandum. Ethnicity. Personal dignity. Romani CRISS Association shows that following natural disasters were drawn-up 19 specification sheets, for houses which belong to some Roma families, for which was proposed the measure of resettlement and reconstruction. The local council was to adopt a decision but this intention was abandoned following a memorandum by which a group of citizens requested that the buildings of Roma persons not be established near their houses. The local authorities stated that through the decisions of the Local Council was decided to use some reconstruction funds and subsequently to repeal these decisions for three grounds of unlawfulness, raised by the Prefecture and retained by the Local Council. Retaining the content of the memorandum addressed to both the Local Council and the Prefect, the Committee considered that although it was tried to infer an apparently neutral character based on objective factors, this has a discriminatory content based on ethnic origin. The argument raised that the defendants had nothing against these persons (Roma) and that (Roma) were entitled to the piece of land on which to build households is countered with the express request that the decision to be adopted should not provide the distribution of plots in the neighbourhood or inside their communities (citizens originating from Caşvana). This

request is substantiated by inferring a distinction in relation to the acquisition of properties, lifestyle and level of the community (ex. “we worked hard in the countries of Europe”, “we paid tens and hundreds of millions lei… to build households”) to the Roma (ex. “we are not used…to live near such citizens”, “the dismal state of the houses”, “they use the land as WC”, “they party often”, “beatings”). Besides, the argument for not establishing the houses for Roma in the neighbourhood or inside the community is strengthened by the prevention of conflicts that would “inherently emerge between their community and ours”. The memorandum of the defendants addressed to public authorities could offend the dignity of persons belonging to the Roma ethnic community in the locality. The action started by the defendants by drawing- up such a memorandum, its signing and addressing to public institutions is a behaviour based on the ethnic origin of the persons mentioned in the memorandum, which led to the creation of an environment at least degrading or offensive. Moreover, also the Prefect showed that “the request that the Roma population do not receive plots for houses among Romanians, majority population (…) is outside the Romanian Constitution.” Through decision no. 107/09.06.2010, the Committee retained that the action of the defendants falls under art. 2 par. 5 (harassment) of G.O. no. 137/2000 on the

prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination, republished (art. 2 par. 5 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

214. Access to medical services. Statements. Ethnicity. Personal dignity Center of Roma for Health Policies Sastipen shows that Ms. L.L. of Roma origin, pregnant in the second month, went during 28 August – 1 September to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Hospital T.N. to benefit of a specialized consultation, but through the manner of address and consultation by the defendant, dr. D.D., she was discriminated based on her ethnic origin and her personal dignity was offended. Thus, it is shown that during several days in which the pregnant woman felt bad and asked for the medical services of the defendant, this did not give her the attention offered to the other patients and addressed insulting words: “that's how you are, the Gypsies”, “Go home, I don't want to see you here anymore”, “What is your problem? You have no problem. Go, or I'll grab the stick”. The defendant disputes the charged statements, mentioning that he provided consultation and appropriate medical services despite the fact that no reference ticket or request for hospitalization were presented. The Committee set down that these arguments could be retained as objective. But the fact that the petitioner never requested institutionalization in the hospital or medical analyses at the personal physician or dispensary or the emergency room raises the question to what extent such an argument is relevant in relation to a person in a special medical situation (pregnancy)

who is part of the Roma community and in a situation of socio-economic or educational disadvantage in relation to the majority population. Or, the same question can be raised also as regards a person who belongs to the majority population, who does not have knowledge to assess her particular medical situation and especially the need for medical

 RO - Piaţa Valter Mărăcineanu 1-3, sector 1,
  Bucureşti, Tel / fax 021-312.65.78/79/85                     54                     „building trust in human rights”
               www.cncd.org.ro