Ascertaining decisions – September 2010

Criterion: Ethnic origin

  1. Roma. Discriminatory statements. Personal dignity. G.M.N. complained about the discriminatory character of statements included in the article “Black beak” issued by the publication ”Giurgiu News” and in the corresponding site comments, where are made public names and expressions regarding him like “black beak”, “blackamoor”, “site of extortion". Through decision no. 214/01.09.2010, the Steering Committee set down that the information in the article do not have a discriminatory character, but the statements included in the comments corresponding to the article in the publication have a discriminatory character and the defendant was recommended closer monitoring of posted comments (art. 2 par. 1 and art. 2 par. 5 of G.O. 137/2000).
  1. Roma. Statements. Ethnical affiliation. Personal dignity. R.C. explains that following a traffic accident, while he was discussing with the defendant, in front of a police officer, this told him "you're a Gypsy". The defendant denied the accusations. From the statements and documents submitted at the file and the investigation report drawn up by NCCD, the Committee retained that on 14.04.2010, in Cluj Napoca, between the cars driven by the petitioner and the defendant there was a collision resulting in slight damages. Being close by, in the exercise of his duties of office, Ag. Martin Ciprian was summoned to the spot, establishing a minor road event. The parties discussed in contradiction regarding the guilt of the accident. At one point, the defendant addressed to the petitioner, telling him: you’re a Gypsy!, repeating that phrase. The investigation report drawn up by the NCCD confirms the petitioner's allegations, this resulting from the discussions of NCCD inspectors with the police agent present at the incident's place. Also, this fact results from the documents submitted by the Police Inspectorate of Cluj County upon the request of NCCD, namely the report of the police agent from the Police of Cluj Municipality. Through decision no. 228 of 08.09.2010, the Committee considered that the notified aspects are discrimination deeds (art. 2 par. 5 of G.O. no. 137/2000, warning).

Criterion: disability

1.Roma. Disability. Restricting the right to education. Offending dignity.

The petitioner, as a non-governmental organization that aims to protect human rights, with a legitimate interest in combating discrimination of persons belonging to the Roma community considers that the deed of restricting access to education for two children on the ethnical affiliation and disability criteria, by refusing to enroll them in the kindergarten of Magheru locality, Mehedinti county and offending the dignity of the grandparents of those children by the pedagogue of the kindergarten is discrimination. The second defendant, the General School Inspectorate of Mehedinti emphasized through its points of view that the institution is not made liable jointly and severally with the first defendant, namely the pedagogue, because the teacher has no employment relationships with this institution, but with the school where she holds the position. The second defendant, namely the directly of the school in which the defendant works specifies through his statement that the pedagogue faced a lack of understanding from the grandparents of children as regards the daily program, denying at the same time the allegations of the petitioner. Through Decision no. 206 of 01.09.2010, the Steering Committee ascertained that MagheruSchool and General School Inspectorate of Mehedinti have no capacity to pursue the proceedings in this case and the refusal of education and of sending the children to separate kindergartens is discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1, in conjunction with art. 11 par. 1 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished. In this case, the defendant Ms. D.M. was sanctioned by warning.

Criterion: nationality

1.The petitioner P.D., a Belgian citizen resident in Romaniaalleges that he is “cursed” and he endures an aggressive and hateful behaviour from the defendant. Like any other citizen, he has the full right to choose his residence and house, to peace and public order without being subjected, by defendant B.V. to a behaviour of rejection and marginalization. He requires that we analyze discrimination and hear a CD, submitted as evidence, which contains a recording in which the defendant addresses the petitioner by “filthy Arab”. The petitioner argues that it has no relevance whether his actual ethnic origin is Arab or not, as the severity of the defendant’s behaviour remains as serious.The defendant addressed insulting words to him, like “ go to hell, you don’t even have a visa, filthy Arab"!

The defendant argues that wanting to get into the elevator of the building where she lives, she was surrounded and pushed in it by the petitioner and his wife. The defendant was struck and insulted with great violence, refusing her getting off the elevator, being released only upon the intervention of some neighbours who heard noises. Traces of the violence deeds are recorded in the medical certificate (photos submitted at the file) which she attached to the criminal complaint she filed as a result of these deeds. The petition was submitted on 13.05.2010, late after the existence of the CD submitted by the petitioner at the file. This was due to the fact that the petitioner realized the seriousness of his actions against the defendant, he found out that criminal investigations against him might be commenced and it is an attempt to solve something.

Through decision no. 255 of 29.09.2010, the Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are harassment according to the provisions of art. 2 par. 5 of G.O. no. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination, republished and it sanctioned the defendant by warning.

Criterion – studies

  1. The petitioner considers that he was discriminated through the fact that his service as a general manager was changed to executive manager, because he has no legal studies. The requirement of legal education for persons who hold the post of general manager was demanded by the defendant subsequent to establishing the condition on the petitioner. The defendant, through the point of view provided states the exception of non-competence ratione materiae of NCCD as regards the elimination of consequences of discriminatory deeds and the reinstatement of the situation previous to discrimination, as well as the exception of the lack of subject-matter, without being motivated.

Through Decision no. 252 of 22.09.2010, the Steering Committee admitted the exception regarding the non-competence ratione materiae stated by the defendant regarding the elimination of the consequences of discriminatory deeds and the reinstatement of the situation previous to discrimination, it rejected the exception of the lack of subject-matter as groundless and it ascertained that the deeds presented in the petition are indirect discrimination according to art. 2 par. 3 in conjunction with art. 5, art. 6 lett. b) and c) and art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished. Also, the Committee decided to issue a recommendation to the defendant in order to eliminate the provision according to which the position of general manager of the Markets Administration of District 6, Bucharest municipality can be filled only by persons with legal studies.

1