Vezi raport EN

„protecţie efectivă a drepturilor omului” as it does not cause distinctions between persons in comparable situations. On the other hand, to the extent such a requirement would involve in fact the application by the employer of a selection process based on purely subjective assessment criteria, which could result in the elimination of candidates or their rejection because of religious or philosophical convictions, it would fall under the provisions of art. 2 par. 3 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished (indirect discrimination). No such differentiations were set down in this case. During the settlement of the complaint, the employer modified the employment announcement.

(2010) Employment relationships. Elected representatives. Allowances for meetings of specialized commissions. Political convictions. Mr. B.S., local counselor complained about the fact that he was denied, together with other colleagues who are part of a certain political party the payment of allowances for the activity within the specialized commissions and of ordinary council sessions, unlike the representatives of other parties, to whom those allowances were paid. Through decision no. 328 of 18.11.2010, the Committee set down that, according to the law regarding the statute of local representatives, the local representatives are entitled to a session

46 CONSILIUL NAŢIONAL PENTRU COMBATEREA DISCRIMINĂRII

allowance, in an amount established by the law for the participation in the specialized commission. From the documents of the file, it resulted that from the 13 local counselors, the payment of allowances was made only for 7 of them. The petitioner and the colleagues who were part of the same party did not receive such allowance, thus it resulted a differentiated treatment which put at disadvantage the petitioner in relation to persons in similar situations, based on his political affiliation. The Committee found that the notified deeds are direct discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 6 lett. c of G.O. no. 137/2000. Also, it was decided to issue a recommendation in order to prevent situations which challenge the equality principle with regard to the right of allowance of local representatives (art. 2 par. 1 and art. 6 lett. c of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

2. Discrimination in the field of labour on grounds of DISABILITY

(2004) Competition of admission to the profession. Organization. Taking into account the disability status. Reasonable accommodation. Mr. G.M. complained about the refusal of the National Union of Public Notaries and of the Ministry of Justice of setting up a separate commission of examination of knowledge for disabled persons with a view to holding the exam of admission in the notary profession. The petitioner is a disabled person and can work under protective conditions. He has difficulties of speech and movement. He is a lawyer, he fulfills the requirements for holding the exam of admission to the notary profession, but he cannot take the exam under similar conditions as the other candidates who do not have a similar disability. The Committee set down that affirmative measures can be adopted with regard to the petitioner’s situation, concretely special measures which take into account the protection of disadvantaged persons (such as ethnic minorities). Through decision no. 362 of 17.12.2004, the Committee set down that the notified deeds are direct discrimination, according to art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3 and art. 19 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented.

The Committee referred to the provisions of art. 15 of the revised European Social Charter and to the provisions of Law no. 102/1999 on the special protection and employment of disabled persons, particularly art. 44 which refers to the obligation of adapting the workplace. The petitioner’s request was legitimate, given that the law promotes the protection of disabled persons. Against the respondent (N.U.P.N.) was decided to apply the contraventional sanction of warning (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3 and art. 19 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented).

(2005) Competition for admission to the profession. Setting up of special commission. Disability. Reasonable accommodation. Mr. G.M. complained about the refusal of setting up a special commission for examining knowledge with a view to admitting the petitioner in the notary profession. The petitioner is a disabled person and he can work