Vezi raport EN

„protecţie efectivă a drepturilor omului” to the fact that the petitioner’s training did not match to the position in question, without justifying this allegation in concrete. Through decision no. 256 of 17.09.2007, the Committee set down that the presumption of different treatment based on the disability criterion was not overturned by the respondent. It was ascertained that the notified deeds are direct discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1 and par. 4 in conjunction with art. 7 of G.O. no. 137/2000. Against the respondent was decided to apply the sanctioning by contraventional fine amounting to 400 RON (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 4 in conjunction with art. 7 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

(2007) Workplace. Accessibility. Disability. Ms. M.E.R., a main dental technician with a hearing impairment received in lease a space upstairs where she undertook her work in the technical-dental field. In the same building, downstairs was the office of another medical office. The petitioner complained about the fact that the employees of the office downstairs frequently closed the door at the entrance in the building so his office could not be reached by patients or medical staff, since she cannot hear the doorbell. Through decision no. 357 of

48 CONSILIUL NAŢIONAL PENTRU COMBATEREA DISCRIMINĂRII

05.11.2007, the Committee set down that because of her disability the petitioner could not hear the doorbell, in order to facilitate the access of potential clients. Blocking the access to the building resulted in limiting the access of persons to the petitioner’s office, affecting her professional activity. It was set down that the notified deeds are discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1 and par. 4, art. 10 lett. b and c of G.O. no. 137/2000. Against the respondents was decided to apply the contraventional sanction of warning (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 4, art. 10 lett. b and c of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

(2009) Labour relationships. Reasonable accommodation at work, Disability. L.L.R., a person with the first level of disability complained about existing conditions at the workplace and the manner in which he was treated, given his medical situation. The petitioner showed that health facilities at work did not allow him to conduct his activities under normal circumstances, namely the circumstances provided by the law regarding the protection of disabled persons. His disability was a reason of marginalization at work and he did not receive “anything to do”. The Committee considered that the called situation calls into question the failure to provide reasonable accommodation at work under minimum conditions, as per the petitioner’s disability. Through decision no. 665 of 26.11.2009, the Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are discrimination and it decided to sanction the respondent by warning (art. 2 par. 1 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

(2009) Labour relationships. Termination of labour agreement. Disability. L.L.E. complained about the termination of her labour agreement because of the disability acquired during the course of work. Although the respondent considered that in this case he terminated the labor agreement lawfully, in fact he alleged that in his organisational chart there are no part- time positions (n.n. which the petitioner would have been able to fill) and on the other hand it does not have activities corresponding to the disability resulting from the decision regarding the work capacity. The Committee ascertained that the respondent did not justify the impossibility of providing part-time positions and it did not reject allegation that he had working units with part- time work places. In light of the provisions of Law no. 448/2006, which ensures the reasonable accommodation at work, through decision no. 463 of 02/09.2009, the Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are direct discrimination and it decided to sanction the respondent by warning (art. 2 par. 1 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

(2009) Labour relationships. Refusal of re-employment. Disability. F.A.E. complained about the refusal of the respondent to re-employ him after the expiry of the labour agreement on determined period because he is a disabled person, although other