Vezi raport EN

„building trust in human rights” Council had adopted a decision by which it forbade the activity of believers of the Roman Church United with Rome (Greek-Catholic) in the church and cemetery of the commune, since they were belonging to the Orthodox church. Similarly, the Commission for local public administration and defence of public order issued a report by which it decided to suppress the right of the priest to serve in the church. The Committee set down that through the acts adopted were perpetrated discrimination deeds, by which were infringed the right to the freedom of conscience and religious beliefs, access to public places, contrary to art. 2 par. 3,

61 RAPORT PRIVIND IMPLEMENTAREA DIRECTIVEI CADRU (2000/78/CE) ÎN ROMÂNIA

art. 18 and art. 19 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented. Against the Council was decided to apply the contraventional sanction of warning (art. 2 par. 3, art. 18, art. 19 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented).

(2006) Education. Study classes. Religious symbols. Freedom of conscience and religion. Mr. E.M. complained about the display of religious symbols in public educational units, considering that they prejudice the right to education in the process of shaping the autonomous and creative human personality and the rights of agnostic persons or of a different religion than that to which those symbols belonged. Through decision no. 323 of 21.11.2006, the Committee set down that in Romania there is a reciprocal recognition of autonomy between the state and the cults. Under the constitutional provisions and ECHR case-law, the state must be neutral and impartial in its relationship with various religions, cults and beliefs. Through the establishment of public educational units the state ensures the exercise of the right to education and neutrality requires the state to shape education in a way of transmitting in an objective, critical and pluralist manner to pupil the information regarding science and religion. Public institutions must take into account the convictions and options of parents or tutors of children. In Romania the exercise

of the parents’ right to opt for religious education for their children is ensured. The unlimited and uncontrolled presence in public educational units of religious symbols, in the absence of a relevant regulation and neutrality, may result in discrimination. The Committee recommended that the Ministry of Education should develop within a reasonable timeframe, internal norms to regulate the presence of religious symbols in public educational units.

(2007) Access to public administrative services. Differentiation. Religious cult. The Association Liga Pro Europa complained about the manner in which public local authorities allocated plots of land for religious cults, in relation to the situation of Greek-Catholic parishes from 2 localities in Mures county. Through decision no. 65 of 27.03.2007, the Committee classified the complaint under the exercise of the right to association and religious freedom of the cults recognized by the law. It was ascertained that as regards the re-establishment of the property right for the location of cults, the Greek-Catholic community was put at disadvantage in relation to the Orthodox community, although they were in comparable situations. The Committee set down that the notified deeds constitute discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1 and par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000. For one of the respondents was decided to apply the contraventional sanction of warning (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 2, art. 10 lett. h of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

(2007) Access to public administrative services. Differentiation. Religious cult. The Association Solidarity for the Freedom of Conscience complained about the manner in which the local public authority (town hall, local council) approved and allotted funds from the public budget to religious cults. Through decision no. 140 of 21.06.2007, the Committee set down that the allocation of fund was done only for the Orthodox Church, omitting the other religious cults. Although it was invoked that allocations were done based on requests, requests from other cults were not taken into consideration. In fact, it was not possible to set down any criterion why the respondent opted for only one party, by excluding the others, considering their comparability situation. The Committee ascertained that the notified deeds constitute discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3 of G.O. no. 137/2000. Also it