Vezi raport EN

„protecţie efectivă a drepturilor omului” it delivered a decision on similar aspects (decision no. 333 of 21.11.2005) and it ascertained that through the interpretation of the fiscal code, 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. Consequently, 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 take 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) Statements. Offending personal dignity. Correlation with disability. Ms. G.M. complained about the statements addressed to the minor under her care related to his medical situation. Ms. G.M. is a foster parent of minor P.M. infected with HIV. Going with him and with other children at home, the respondent C.D. admonished the children and reproached to Ms. G.M. the following: „Why did you take this disabled person with you?”.

64 CONSILIUL NAŢIONAL PENTRU COMBATEREA DISCRIMINĂRII

Through decision no. 319 of 14.11.2006, the Committee endorsed the resolutions of the court, which was notified with a criminal complaint and the resolutions stated that P.M. being really infected with HIV suffered a trauma, being aware that some people blame him for his situation. The Committee set down that through the charged statement made in the public was offended the right to personal dignity in relation to the situation of the minor, considered by the respondent as „disabled”. It was ascertained that the notified deeds are 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).

(2007) Access to services designed for the public. Taxi services. Refusal. Disability. Ms. P.E. complained about the refusal of being transported from a dentist. Subsequent to ordering the taxi from the company, at the moment of taking in, the driver mentioned that he cannot accommodate the petitioner, because he cannot open the trunk of the car. Following her insistence to place the trolley on the back bench, the driver had initially accepted and afterward he requested the petitioner to go down. Through decision no. 44 of 15.03.2007, the Committee set down that the notified deeds are direct discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1 and par. 4 and art. 15 of G.O. no. 137/2000. Against the respondent was decided to apply the contraventional sanction of warning (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 4 and art. 15 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

(2007) Social insurance rights. Method of calculation. Disability. Ms. M.E. complained about the method of calculation of her pension entitlements. She indicates that she is a person with accentuated disability and in the calculation of the pension her disability and the benefit offered by the law to persons with disabilities were not taken into account. The respondent indicated that the retirement was done under the law for full length of service and the provisions invoked apply to persons eligible for pension at the date when they were into force. Through decision no. 230 of 16.07.2007, the Committee set down that as regards persons with disabilities, different methods of calculation were established for the same category of persons: those who had a disability prior to being insured, retired according to the framework law (no. 3/1997) who did not benefit from age reduction and of the contributory period and persons who had a disability prior to being insured, retired according to special laws who benefit from the reduction of age and contributory period. In such conditions, the existing inconsistency led to a different treatment

applied to persons in comparable situations. The Committee decided to issue a recommendation to the Ministry of Labour and the National Pensions House to regulate the current situation in order to ensure an equal treatment to persons in the same situation (art. 1 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished, the equality principle).