Vezi raport EN

„building trust in human rights” no. 340 of 23.11.2010, the Committee set down that the manner in which the site e-Romania was initially conceived, although apparently neutral, led to putting at disadvantage persons belonging to other cults recognized in Romania, since no information in their regard was included (art. 2 par. 3 of G.O. no. 137/2000). Acknowledging the modifications made, it was decided to issue a recommendation to the respondent to endeavour to prevent similar situations (art. 2 par. 3 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

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

2. Discrimination in the access to goods, services, facilities, personal dignity on DISABILITY grounds

(2005) Information campaign. Advertisement. Social category. Disability. Personal dignity. The Organization for Children and Adults with Special Needs complained about the development and content of an advertisement for pregnant women who give birth to sick children, supposedly with a disability conveyed in a manner which offends dignity. Through decision no. 217 of 30.08.2005, the Committee set down that the respondent had initiated an information campaign justified by a legitimate aim (raising the awareness of pregnant women regarding the importance of health checks), but the method of attaining that aim, i.e how it was achieved was inadequate, built on an offensive content regarding mothers who give birth to sick children, persons with disabilities or suffering from the Down syndrome. Any democratic society gives a particular importance to the protection of persons who are in an inequality position in relation to the majority because of a disability or a disease. It was 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. Against the

respondent 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) Taxation rules. Interpretation. Differentiation. Disability. Professional status. The National Authority for Disabled Persons notified NCCD regarding the fact that the Ministry of Public Finance, through the interpretation of certain provisions of the fiscal code applies a differentiated treatment to civil servants in relation to persons employed with a contract. In this case is allowed the exemption from the tax on income obtained by natural persons with severe or accentuated disability employed with individual contract, but persons with severe or accentuated disability who are employed as civil servants in state institutions do not benefit from these exemptions. Through decision no. 333 of 21.11.2005, the Committee set down that although the fiscal code does not differentiate, simply referring to the individual labour contract, through the interpretation given by the respondent, the persons with severe or accentuated disability who are employed as civil servants were eliminated from the benefit of tax exemption provided by the law. Or, the criterion which underlay the tax exemption

was the severe or accentuated disability and not the conduct of labour relationships. The Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are direct discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 6 lett. c of G.O. no. 137/2000 and it recommended that the respondent should adopt the necessary measures to eliminate the differentiated treatment (art. 2 par. 1 and art. 6 lett. c of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented).

(2006) Taxation rules. Interpretation. Differentiation. Disability. Professional status. Mr. B.A.C. complained about the fact that through the provisions of the fiscal code a differentiated treatment is applied to civil servants in relation to persons employed with individual contract. In this case, is allowed an exemption from the tax on income obtained by natural persons with severe or accentuated disability with individual employment contract, but persons with severe or accentuated disability who are employed as civil servants in state institutions do not benefit from these exemptions. Through decision no. 82 of 14.03.2006 the Committee set down that