Country report : non-discrimination : Romania 2015.
Date: 2016-03-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Subjects: Romania, age discrimination, anti-discriminatory measure, discrimination based on disability, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, equal treatment, ethnic discrimination, national law, religious discrimination, report, sexual discrimination, social policy

Romania 

2015 

Including summaries in 
English, French and 
German 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 
Directorate D — Equality 
Unit JUST/D1 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Country report 

Non-discrimination 

Romania 

Romanița Elena Iordache  

Reporting period 1 January 2014 – 31 December 2014 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 

2015

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 

ISBN 978-92-79-53376-1   

doi: 10.2838/358291 

DS-02-15-940-3A-N 

© European Union, 2015 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Romania – 2015 

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 5 
RÉSUMÉ ............................................................................................................ 13 
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG ........................................................................................ 22 
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 31 
GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................. 35 
1 
THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION .................................................... 36 
2 
2.1  Grounds of unlawful discrimination explicitly covered ................................ 36 

3 

4 

2.1.1  Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the 

directives ................................................................................. 36 
2.1.2  Multiple discrimination ............................................................... 36 
Assumed and associated discrimination ....................................... 37 
2.1.3 
2.2  Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) ...................................................... 38 
2.2.1 
Situation testing ....................................................................... 39 
Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) ................................................... 39 
Statistical evidence ................................................................... 41 
2.3.1 
2.4  Harassment (Article 2(3)) ...................................................................... 43 
2.5 
Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) ................................................ 45 
2.6  Reasonable accommodation duties (Article 2(2)(b)(ii) and Article 5 Directive 

2.3 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 47 
PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE ............................................................ 54 
3.1  Personal scope ..................................................................................... 54 

3.1.1 

3.1.2 

EU and non-EU nationals (Recital 13 and Article 3(2) Directive 
2000/43 and Recital 12 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/78) ........... 54 
Protection against discrimination (Recital 16 Directive 2000/43) ..... 54 
3.2  Material scope ...................................................................................... 55 
Employment, self-employment and occupation ............................. 55 

3.2.1 
3.2.2  Conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to 

3.2.3 

3.2.4 

occupation, including selection criteria, recruitment conditions and 
promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the 
professional hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a)) ........................................ 57 
Employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissals 
(Article 3(1)(c)) ........................................................................ 58 
Access to all types and to all levels of vocational guidance, vocational 
training, advanced vocational training and retraining, including 
practical work experience (Article 3(1)(b)) ................................... 58 

3.2.5  Membership of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers or 

3.2.6 

employers, or any organisation whose members carry on a particular 
profession, including the benefits provided for by such organisations 
(Article 3(1)(d)) ........................................................................ 59 
Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 
3(1)(e) Directive 2000/43) ......................................................... 60 
Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) .................... 60 
Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) ............................... 61 
Access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the 
public (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) .................................... 66 
3.2.10  Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) ................................. 67 
EXCEPTIONS ............................................................................................. 70 
4.1  Genuine and determining occupational requirements (Article 4) .................. 70 
4.2  Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) Directive 

3.2.7 
3.2.8 
3.2.9 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 70 

4.3  Armed forces and other specific occupations (Article 3(4) and Recital 18 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 72 
4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) ................................................... 73 
4.5  Work-related family benefits (Recital 22 Directive 2000/78) ....................... 73 
4.6  Health and safety (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) .................................... 74 

3 

 
 
4.7  Exceptions related to discrimination on the ground of age (Article 6 Directive 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 74 
4.7.1  Direct discrimination ................................................................. 74 
4.7.2 

Special conditions for young people, older workers and persons with 
caring responsibilities ................................................................ 77 
4.7.3  Minimum and maximum age requirements ................................... 77 
4.7.4  Retirement ............................................................................... 78 
4.7.5  Redundancy ............................................................................. 81 
4.8  Public security, public order, criminal offences, protection of health, protection 
of the rights and freedoms of others (Article 2(5), Directive 2000/78) ......... 82 
4.9  Any other exceptions ............................................................................. 82 
POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 
2000/78) .................................................................................................. 83 
REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT ................................................................. 87 
6.1 
Judicial and/or administrative procedures (Article 7 Directive 2000/43, Article 
9 Directive 2000/78) ............................................................................. 87 

6.2  Legal standing and associations (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/43, Article 9(2) 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 88 
6.3  Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78).. 90 
6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) ...... 91 
6.5  Sanctions and remedies (Article 15 Directive 2000/43, Article 17 Directive 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 92 
BODIES FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUAL TREATMENT (Article 13 Directive  
2000/43) .................................................................................................. 95 
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES...................................................................... 101 
8.1  Dissemination of information, dialogue with NGOs and between social 

5 

6 

7 

8 

partners ............................................................................................ 101 
8.2  Compliance (Article 14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78).... 101 
9 
COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL ..................................................... 104 
10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICES ..................................................................... 106 
11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES ................................................ 107 
11.1  Potential breaches of the directives (if any) ............................................ 107 
11.2  Other issues of concern ....................................................................... 108 
12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS ......................................................................... 110 
12.1  Legislative amendments ...................................................................... 110 
12.2  Case law ............................................................................................ 110 
ANNEX 1: TABLE OF KEY NATIONAL ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION ... 112 
ANNEX 2: TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ..................................... 114 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1. Introduction 

Though theoretically a diverse society,1 the understanding of the principle of equality and 
non-discrimination  in  Romania  is  marked  by  three  historical  periods.  Firstly,  Romanian 
society  had  to  come  to  terms  with  the  Communist  experience,  defined  by  an  imposed 
rhetoric of equality, de facto contradicted by aggressive assimilationist policies in regard 
to  national  or  ethnic  minorities,  refusal  to  recognise  Roma  as  an  ethnic  minority, 
criminalisation  of  consensual  homosexual  activities  and  denial  of  religious  freedom. 
Secondly, Romania still has to cope with the transition started in 1989. This was a period 
of increased awareness of the situation of minorities, doubled by a process of asserting the 
rights of these groups and the principles of equality and non-discrimination, including the 
adoption in 2000 of the Anti-discrimination Law. The third period, following accession to 
the  EU  in  2007,  is  one  of  regression  in  the  protection  of  human  rights  and  revival  of 
nationalistic  and  extremist  discourse  and  conduct  in  relation  to  vulnerable  groups, 
particularly Roma, LGBT people and religious minorities. This last stage of regression was 
more obvious in electoral years.  

The  Romanian  Anti-discrimination  Law,  Governmental  Ordinance  137/2000  (GO 
137/2000), was adopted in 2000 as delegated legislation and subsequently amended, with 
the last three rounds of amendments in 2013 triggered by the proceedings before the Court 
of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in C-81/12.2 The 2000 adoption took place in a 
sensitive environment. The discussions taking place in parallel regarding the two European 
Equality Directives influenced the phrasing of the Romanian law, whose provisions, in many 
ways, went beyond the acquis. Fifteen years after adopting the Anti-discrimination Law, 
Romania remains tainted by discrimination. The Romanian Roma minority, for which official 
statistics  are  contested  but  which  is  considered  to  be  the  largest  in  Europe,  faces 
discrimination in access to employment, to healthcare, to services and goods, to housing, 
including  public  housing,  and  to  education.  Romanian  legislation  on  housing  fails  to 
mention Roma in any of its social provisions, which leads to indirect discrimination. Most 
of  the  cases  before  the  national  equality  body  -  the  National  Council  for  Combating 
Discrimination (NCCD) – mention infringements of the right to dignity. The revival of the 
extreme nationalist discourse characteristic of the cases of arson and mob violence against 
Roma  communities  of  the  early  1990s  permeates  the  public  sphere,  particularly  in  the 
context of incidents in north-western Romania. Media reports of Italian, French, British or 
German concerns regarding Romanian Roma provided new opportunities for discriminatory 
public statements against Roma, including by officials. This gradual acquiescence to racism 
led to construction of a wall of almost 100 metres long and 1.8-2 metres high in Baia Mare 
in 2011 as a ‘safety measure’.3 

Though expressly protected by the Anti-discrimination Law, sexual minorities remain the 
group most under attack, with legislative proposals aiming to restrict their rights and acts 
of aggression every year during NGO events, attacks which remain uninvestigated and free 

1   According to the 2011 national census, the Romanian population includes 88.9 % Romanians, 6.5 % 

Hungarians, 2.46 % Roma and less than 1 % Ukrainians, Germans, Russians, Turks, Tatars, Serbs, Slovaks, 
Croats, Jews, Armenians and Bulgarians. Information available at: 
http://www.edrc.ro/recensamant.jsp?language=0.  

2   Romania, Governmental Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of 
discrimination (Ordonanța de Guvern 137/2000 privind prevenirea și sancționarea tuturor formelor 
de discriminare), was published in Monitorul Oficial al României No. 431 of September 2000. Most recent 
amendments: Romania, Law 61/2013 for the amendment of the Government Ordinance 137/2000 regarding 
the prevention and the punishment of all forms of discrimination, 21 March 2013, and Romania, Emergency 
Ordinance 19/2013 for the amendment of the Government Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention 
and the punishment of all forms of discrimination, 27 March 2013). 

3   Though the NCCD sanctioned the construction of the wall, the Court of Appeal quashed the NCCD decision. 
In 2013, the High Court of Cassation and Justice eventually upheld the sanctions the NCCD imposed on the 
mayor of Baia Mare. However in separate court proceedings seeking demolition of the segregating wall, the 
Bucharest Tribunal upheld the legality of the wall, which still stands. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
of  sanctions.  The  new  Civil  Code,  in  force  since  2011,  includes  a  specific  prohibition  of 
same-sex  partnership  and  marriage,  including  denial  of  recognition  to  partnerships  and 
marriages  legally  registered  abroad  (even  when  contracted  between  foreigners). 
Transgender persons cannot invoke any legal protection, as the legislation does not provide 
for clear and predictable procedures and applicable standards.  

Specific programmes and positive action targeting persons with disabilities or people living 
with HIV/AIDS are scarce and still do not cover the wide range of problems encountered. 
Though it signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in September 
2007,  Romania  only  ratified  it  in  November  2010.  No  subsequent  legislation  for 
harmonisation has been adopted and the official translation deviates from the text of the 
Convention. Romanian legislation still uses the concept ‘handicap’ instead of ‘person with 
disability’, promoting a medically focused approach.  

The  national  equality  body  (NCCD)  has  contributed  to  the  process  of  dialogue  and 
consultation with NGOs and social partners but the NCCD itself is under siege, as it has 
limited  human  and  material  resources  and  is  the  victim  of  increased  politicisation  of  its 
Steering Board due to the appointment process for its members. 

2. Main legislation 

The  Romanian  Constitution  guarantees  equal  treatment  of  all  citizens  in  Article  4.2, 
providing for citizenship without any discrimination on account of race, nationality, ethnic 
origin, language, religion, sex, opinion, political adherence, property or social origin, and 
in  Article  16  providing  for  equality  of  all  citizens  before  the  law  and  public  authorities, 
without  any  privilege  or  discrimination.  Article  30 (7)  prohibits  ‘any  instigation …  to 
national, racial, class or religious hatred, any incitement to discrimination’. During the 2013 
discussions  on  constitutional  revision,  it  was  proposed  to  widen  the  list  of  protected 
grounds beyond those in Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, but to exclude 
sexual  orientation,  which  was  initially  included  and  subsequently  deleted  by  the 
parliamentary commission. 

Romania has signed all major European and international human rights instruments and 
the Constitution asserts that constitutional provisions concerning the rights of citizens shall 
be interpreted and enforced in conformity with the UDHR, the covenants and other treaties 
Romania  is  a  party  to.  Article  20  of  the  Constitution  also  provides  for  the  primacy  of 
international regulations where any inconsistencies exist between treaties on fundamental 
human rights to which Romania is a party and the national laws, unless the Constitution 
or national laws comprise more favourable provisions.  

Besides the specific Anti-discrimination Law (GO 137/2000), the Civil Code allows for torts 
claims  for  damages  (including  damages  generated  by  discrimination)  and  the  Criminal 
Code includes provisions on aggravating circumstances when  criminal intention is based 
on any of the grounds protected by anti-discrimination legislation.  

The  new  Criminal  Code,  which  entered  into  force  in  February  2014,  includes  protection 
against incitement to discrimination, hate crimes and abuse with a discriminatory intent in 
the exercise of an official function. These are, however, norms with limited applicability, 
as proved by the specific statistics provided by the Prosecutor General. 

The Labour Code, as amended in 2011, includes general prohibitions against discrimination 
in employment. The law on equal opportunities between women and men replicates some 
of the provisions of the Anti-discrimination Law but lacks effective remedies and adequate 
mechanisms  for  their  implementation  –  de  facto,  the  national  equality  body  covers  all 
grounds of discrimination.  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  2008  and  2009,  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  was  reviewed  by  the  Romanian 
Constitutional  Court  in  a  series  of  cases  and  its  application  was  partially  limited.  The 
Constitutional Court restricted the applicability of the Anti-discrimination Law in relation to 
legislative acts (laws and ordinances), as the relevant provision of the law was declared 
unconstitutional when interpreted as enabling courts or the NCCD to quash discriminatory 
legal  provisions.  However,  both  in  2008  and  2009,  during  the  review  triggered  by 
complaints challenging the constitutionality of the mandate of the NCCD, its role as a quasi-
judicial body was confirmed. The Anti-discrimination Law was amended several times, with 
three  recent  amendments  in  2013  aiming  to  ensure  the  incorporation  of  European 
definitions. 

3. Main principles and definitions 

The  Anti-discrimination  Law  introduces  a  broad,  comprehensive  definition  of  direct 
discrimination,  going  beyond  the  substance  and  coverage  of  Directives  43/2000/EC  and 
78/2000/EC.4  Even  though  the  list  of  protected  grounds  is  very  generous  and  includes 
grounds  outside the five grounds mentioned by the directives, the catch-all phrase ‘any 
other criterion’ creates the possibility for the courts or for the NCCD to apply the Law to a 
wide list of categories going beyond the mere experience of discrimination and turning the 
anti-discrimination  norm  into  a  wider  equality  principle  -  this  ‘hyperinflation’  of  grounds 
has the potential for negative impact on enforceability.  

Since 2006, the Law has defined indirect discrimination5 as well as harassment.6  

Harassment is also sanctioned in the Equal Opportunities Law and in the Criminal Code but 
none of the definitions fully complies with the definition set out in the directives. 

Victimisation is defined as any adverse treatment triggered by a complaint submitted to 
the NCCD or by a case lodged with the courts of law regarding infringement of the principle 
of equal treatment and non-discrimination. Instruction to discriminate is defined as ‘order’ 
to discriminate, leaving room for further clarification. Multiple discrimination is defined and 
constitutes an aggravating circumstance in cases of discrimination, though enforcement in 
the jurisprudence of the NCCD is scant and suggests lack of understanding of the concept.  

The Anti-discrimination Law was amended in 2013 to include a definition of genuine and 
determining  occupational  requirements  which  still  needs  interpretation.  The  Anti-
discrimination Law does not mention reasonable accommodation but specifically includes 
a definition of positive measures. Reasonable accommodation is defined in the legislation 
on the rights of person with disabilities as a facility for the employee but not as a duty of 
the employer.7 The notions put forward in the ECRI General Policy Recommendation no. 7 
are not set out in the Romanian law, although some of these have been incorporated by 
the  NCCD  in  its  jurisprudence,  specifically  segregation  in  education;  discrimination  by 

4   Romania, Anti-discrimination Law (GO 137/2000) sanctions ‘any difference, exclusion, restriction or 

preference based on race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, social status, beliefs, gender, sexual 
orientation, age, handicap, non-contagious chronic disease, HIV positive status, belonging to a 
disadvantaged group or any other criterion, aiming to or resulting in a restriction or prevention of the equal 
recognition, use or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social and 
cultural field or in any other fields of public life.’ 

5   Indirect discrimination is defined as ‘any provisions, criteria or practices apparently neutral which 

disadvantage certain persons on grounds of one of the protected groups, excepting the cases when these 
practices, criteria and provisions have an objective justification based on a legitimate purpose and the 
methods used to reach that purpose are adequate and necessary.’ 

6   Harassment is defined and sanctioned as ‘any behaviour on grounds of race, nationality, ethnic origin, 

language, religion, social status, beliefs, gender, sexual orientation, belonging to a disadvantaged group, 
age, handicap, refugee or asylum seeker status or any other criterion, which leads to establishing an 
intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment.’ 

7   Romania/Law 448/2006 on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Persons with a Handicap (06 

December 2006). 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
association;  announced  intention  to  discriminate;  instructing  another  to  discriminate; 
inciting  to  discriminate;  aiding  another  to  discriminate.  A  2011  case,  which  made  the 
headlines in the national media, evidenced the failure to include in the law the prohibition 
of residential segregation, a form of discrimination which is prevalent in relation to Roma. 
The  NCCD  sanctioned  the  case  as  discrimination  and  the  courts  eventually  upheld  the 
decision.8 

4. Material scope 

The  material  scope  of  the  Romanian  Anti-discrimination  Law  encompasses  the  areas 
protected by both Directive 43/2000/EC and Directive 78/2000/EC. The law goes beyond 
these areas, in addition providing for protection in relation to freedom of movement, as 
well as for protection of the right to dignity. When defining discrimination, the legislator 
took  a  comprehensive  approach  and  the  principle  of  equality  and  the  prohibition  of 
discrimination  apply  in  relation  to  all  fundamental  rights  and  freedoms.  Both  public  and 
private actors are obliged to observe the Anti-discrimination Law (GO 137/2000). 

Following  the  decisions  issued  by  the  Romanian  Constitutional  Court  in  2008  and 
reconfirmed  in  2009,  the  provisions  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  are  not  applicable  in 
cases  of  discrimination  triggered  by  discriminatory  legislative  norms  (laws  or  delegated 
legislation), and the courts and the NCCD do not have the authority to nullify or to refuse 
the application of legal norms when considering that such norms are discriminatory. While 
during  court  proceedings  any  party  can  ask  for  the  case  to  be  brought  before  the 
Constitutional  Court  to  assess  its  unconstitutionality,  this  option  is  not  available  for 
proceedings  before  the  NCCD,  which  does  not  have  constitutional  standing.  The 
Ombudsperson, which has standing in this regard, has not so far reported using its power 
to bring discriminatory legislation before the Constitutional Court.  

5. Enforcing the law 

The  Anti-discrimination  Law)  creates  a  dual  system  of  remedies:  the  complainant  can 
choose between filing a complaint with the NCCD on the administrative track or/and lodging 
a  civil  complaint  for  damages  with  the  courts  seeking  damages  (cases  in  both  fora  are 
exempt from court fees). Victims can also choose to use both forums simultaneously, which 
creates difficulties in practice and overstretches the already scarce resources of the NCCD, 
as the institution is asked to participate in civil proceedings as an expert. A challenge is 
also the possibility of obtaining conflicting judgments in the parallel fora. 

Any individual or any legal person with an interest in a case, including human rights NGOs 
and minority groups, can file a complaint with the NCCD within one year of occurrence of 
the alleged discrimination. The  NCCD can also start a case  ex  officio. The NCCD has 90 
days  to  investigate  the  case,  organise  hearings  and  rule  on  whether  anti-discrimination 
provisions were breached. When NCCD finds that discrimination took place it can issue an 
administrative sanction (administrative warning or fine). The NCCD rulings can be appealed 
before the administrative courts. If the victim is an individual, the amount of the fine as 
modified in 2013 is within the range of EUR 250-7 500 (RON 1 000-30 000); if the victims 
are a group or a community, the fine is within the range of EUR 500-25 000 (RON 2 000-
100 000).  

The NCCD has also developed the practice of issuing recommendations carrying no financial 
or administrative penalties, particularly in cases against public authorities but also when 
procedural  deadlines  were  not  observed.  In  doing  so,  the  NCCD  invoked  the  statutory 
limitations  established  by  the  general  regime  on  minor  offences.  The  impact  of  this 
decision, however, was that it called into question the effectiveness, proportionality and 
dissuasiveness of the remedies provided in cases of discrimination. The 2013 amendments 

8   Romania, High Court of Cassation and Justice, file 1741/33/2011, decision 640/27.09.2013. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
to the Anti-discrimination Law addressed this challenge, introducing a statutory limitation 
term  of  six  months  for  applying  a  sanction,  calculated  from  the  date  when  the  NCCD 
decision is issued, thus replacing the controversial administrative statutory limitation, an 
aspect also discussed by the Court  of Justice  of the  European Union (CJEU) in C-81/12. 
Victims seeking to claim compensation for discrimination have to lodge complaints with the 
civil courts - a decision from the NCCD is not required but it may play an important role in 
ascertaining  whether  discrimination  took  place  and  in  establishing  the  quantum  of  the 
damages. The NCCD is called in as an expert entity. 

In the case of a civil complaint for damages, the complainant can request pecuniary and 
moral damages and other types of sanctions (e.g. withdrawal or suspension of licences of 
private entities providing services). According to Article 27 of the Anti-discrimination Law 
the courts of law can rule that public authorities withdraw or suspend the authorisation to 
operate of legal persons who caused significant damage as a result of discriminatory action 
or who repeatedly infringe the provisions of the anti-discrimination legislation. 

Victims  of  discrimination  can  choose  to  contact  a  human  rights  NGO  and  seek 
representation or can start the case in nome proprio. Victims can choose to communicate 
with  the  NCCD  confidentially  in  order  to  avoid  media  attention,  as  allowed  by  the 
procedures of the NCCD. The same request for confidentiality can be filed with the courts 
and it is up to the judge to decide whether proceedings will take place in camera. The 2006 
amendment to the Anti-discrimination Law specifically allowed for any type of evidence to 
be used in cases of discrimination, including audio and video recordings as well as statistical 
data, and the NCCD uses  statistics as evidence, as proved by its jurisprudence. Though 
the NCCD and (mainly) Roma NGOs used situation testing in the past, this method has not 
been used in more recent cases. 

The 2013 amendment to the Anti-discrimination Law redefines the burden of proof.9 The 
case law of the NCCD interpreted provisions on the burden of proof along the lines of the 
directives in some cases but not consistently, with the NCCD leaving the onus of proof on 
the complainants in a significant number of cases.  

NGOs have legal standing and can file cases either on behalf of or in support of victims of 
discrimination.  However,  the  remedies  provided  in  such  cases  are  limited,  as  personal 
damages are required for the courts to order compensation. 

There is no clear picture and no assessment of the sanctions issued by courts in cases of 
discrimination. Given the limited number of cases publicly available, it can be concluded 
that the courts have established a ceiling of a maximum of EUR 10 000 for moral damages 
– this has been granted in a limited number of cases. Pecuniary damages need to be proved 
on the basis of the regular civil procedure on torts. 

In  spite  of  the  failure  to  ensure  online  publication  of  all  court  and  NCCD  decisions  and 
adequate monitoring of the enforcement of these decisions, information regarding repeat 
offenders  may  indicate  that  the  remedies  are  not  yet  proportionate,  dissuasive  and 
effective. 

6. Equality bodies 

Provision for the national equality body, the National Council on Combating Discrimination 
(NCCD)  (Consiliul  Naţional  pentru  Combaterea  Discriminării)  was  made  in  2000,  in  the 

9   The new wording of the burden of proof provides that ‘the interested person will present facts based on 
which it can be presumed that direct or indirect discrimination exists, and the person against whom the 
complaint was filed has the duty to prove that no infringement of the principle of equal treatment occurred. 
Before the Steering Board (the courts) any means of proof can be brought, observing the constitutional 
regime of fundamental rights, including audio and video recordings and statistical data.’ 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Anti-discrimination  Law  but  it  was  effectively  established  in  the  autumn  of  2002.  From 
2007, the NCCD started opening regional offices and it currently has two such offices.  

The NCCD is an autonomous public authority under the control of the Parliament, whose 
independence is established in the Anti-discrimination Law. The appointment of its Steering 
Board  members  by  the  six  relevant  parliamentary  committees,  as  a  guarantee  of  its 
institutional  independence,  proved  in  practice  to  be  a  hindrance,  as  politicisation  of  the 
nomination process led to paralysis of the NCCD between the summer of 2009 and April 
2010. The appointments made in April 2010 were criticised by NGOs and by independent 
candidates for failing to observe the legal requirements and for politicisation of the process, 
seriously hampering the professionalisation it needs. Calls against the politicisation of the 
institution also came from inside the NCCD itself, including from its president. Three new 
appointments  in  2012  were  met  with  mixed  reactions,  as  while  two  candidates  were 
political appointees with limited relevant experience, the third was a well-established anti-
discrimination  expert,  whose  mandate  was  renewed  on  the  basis  of  his  expertise  and 
commitment and in spite of his lack of any political affiliation. 

The  mandate  of  the  NCCD  encompasses:  providing  support  for  victims  of  discrimination 
through independent assistance; preventing discrimination through awareness-raising and 
conducting studies and research;, compilation of relevant data; independent surveys and 
independent  reports;  mediating  between  parties; 
investigating  and  sanctioning 
discrimination;  and  initiating  legislative  bills  to  ensure  harmonisation  of  legal  provisions 
with the equality principle. In practice, the main function of the NCCD is as a quasi-judicial 
body  which  can  find  that  certain  acts  or  procedures  amount  to  discrimination  and  can 
subsequently issue administrative sanctions (warnings or fines).  

The  visibility  of  the  NCCD  has  increased  exponentially  in  the  last  six  years,  following  a 
series of cases involving key Romanian politicians (the President, the Prime Minister, two 
former Ministers of Foreign Affairs and a Member of the European Parliament), as well as 
cases  which  generated  a  lot  of  media  attention  (  e.g.  the  decision  on  the  presence  of 
religious symbols in public classrooms, school segregation cases, decisions against various 
sports clubs) and public positions taken against racist and populist conduct. The institution 
gradually  became  a  proactive  actor,  engaged  in  a  multitude  of  projects  and  established 
itself  as  a  serious  voice  in  the  sphere  of  combating  discrimination  in  a  very  sensitive 
environment.  

7. Key issues 

a. 

Failure  to  ensure  adequate  sanctions  which  are  dissuasive,  proportionate  and 
effective 

The NCCD practice of sanctioning cases of discrimination only with administrative warnings 
or  recommendations  and  not  issuing  administrative  fines  erodes  the  effective, 
proportionate  and  dissuasive  character  of  its  remedies.  Warnings  do  not  carry  financial 
penalties and there is no policy to follow up and engage with the perpetrators to secure 
their enforcement and prevent further discrimination.  

b. 

The NCCD and the courts cannot find against and sanction discrimination in cases of 
discriminatory norms 

The  limitation  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  by  the  Romanian  Constitutional  Court  in  a 
series of decisions issued in 2008 and 2009, which limited both the mandate of the NCCD10 
and of the civil courts in relation to discrimination generated by legislative provisions,  11 

10   Romania, Constitutional Court (Curtea Constituţională), Decision 997, 7 September 2008, finding Art. 20 (3) 

of the Anti-discrimination Law (GO 137/2000), defining the mandate of the NCCD in relation to 
discrimination triggered by legislative provisions to be unconstitutional. 

11   Romania, Constitutional Court (Curtea Constituţională), Decisions 818, 819 and 820, 3 July 2008. The 

Constitutional Court concluded that the dispositions of Art. 1(2) e) and of Art. 27 of the Anti-discrimination 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
created a gap in the effective protection against discrimination. The NCCD does not have 
standing  to  bring  cases  for  constitutional  review  before  the  Constitutional  Court  when 
identifying discriminatory norms. 

 Legal concepts still needing clarification and interpretation 

c. 
None  of  the  definitions  of  harassment  from  the  different  relevant  norms  (Anti-
discrimination Law, Equal Opportunities Law, Criminal Code) are in full compliance with the 
definition of harassment contained in Article 2 (3) of the Equality Directives. The Romanian 
Anti-discrimination  Law  uses  the  word  ‘order’  instead  of  ‘instruction’  in  Article  2,  which 
might  lead  to  a  restrictive  interpretation  of  the  instruction  to  discriminate,  limiting  the 
prohibition to hierarchical relations. 

The concept of reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities is not included in 
the Romanian Anti-discrimination Law and it is currently defined in the special legislation 
on  the  promotion  and  protection  of  the  rights  of  persons  with  disabilities  but  without 
provision for sanctions.  

 Institutional limitations of the national equality body 

d. 
Though mentioned by the Anti-discrimination Law, the NCCD has not so far developed an 
operational mechanism to monitor infringements of the legislation or to monitor compliance 
with its decisions, hence it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of its mandate and the 
effective, proportional and dissuasive character of the sanctions it issues. 

The  institutional  paralysis  of  the  NCCD  between  the  summer  of  2009  and  April  2010, 
caused by the failure of the Parliament to appoint new members to the Steering Board of 
the NCCD due to a political standstill, as well as the NGO protests following the nominations 
of six new members in April 2010, some of whom did not fulfil the legal criteria of expertise, 
indicated  that  appointment  of  NCCD  Steering  Board  members  by  the  Parliament,  as  a 
guarantee of the institutional independence, has in practice proved to be a hindrance. The 
trend  towards  politicisation  of  the  institution  was  confirmed  by  two  new  political 
appointments in 2012 and only one renewal for an independent expert, and by criticisms 
voiced even from within the NCCD itself. Politicisation of the Steering Board was visible in 
several  areas:  controversial  decision  in  cases  involving  politicians;  demise  of  effective 
remedies in favour of recommendations lacking any legal power; quality of legal reasoning; 
number of decisions of the NCCD upheld by the courts after being appealed. 

The budget of the NCCD has been continually reduced, beginning in 2009, when the budget 
was  cut  by  30 %.  Budgetary  cuts  of  10 %  were  subsequently  applied.  According  to  the 
NCCD, no new staff were recruited to the institution due to the budgetary cuts and to a 
general ban on recruitment in the public system, issued as a part of the reform package in 
response to the financial crisis. In addition, some of the activities of the NCCD have been 
affected by the lack of funds or delays in making funds available due to difficult financial 
procedures (e.g. investigations or awareness campaigns). 

Lack of equality data 

e. 
Misinterpretation of the legislation for the protection of private data leads to generalised 
absence of equality data which could facilitate development of public policies responding 
to  the  needs  of  different  vulnerable  groups,  allow  adequate  monitoring  of  the  special 
measures or could be used in courts or before the NCCD when proving discrimination.  

Emerging practice of asking for evidence in infringing right to dignity 

f. 
Romanian  anti-discrimination  legislation  applies  to  an  open-ended  list  of  criteria  for 
protection  going  beyond  those  provided  by  the  directives,  and  the  scope  of  the  Anti-
discrimination Law is applicable to areas beyond those set out in the directives. The fact 

Law (GO 137/2000) are unconstitutional, to the extent that they are understood as implying that the courts 
of law have the authority to nullify or to refuse the application of legal norms when considering that such 
norms are discriminatory. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
that  Romanian  legal  provisions  go  beyond  the  minimum  requirements  of  the  directives 
and, most importantly, place emphasis on ‘the right to dignity’ in combating discrimination, 
increases  the  effectiveness  of  the  anti-discrimination  mechanisms  and  helps  to  increase 
the visibility of the NCCD and awareness of the provisions of the Anti-discrimination Law. 
The ‘right to dignity’ has been invoked in cases where the legal provisions were not fully 
sufficient, as was the case in regard to the dividing wall segregating the Roma community 
in  Baia  Mare.12  However,  in  relation  to  the  right  to  dignity,  a  worrying  practice  is  being 
developed by the NCCD and by the courts, requiring claimants to produce evidence that 
defendants actually had an intention to discriminate. 

12   NCCD Decision No. 439 from 15.11.2011 in file no. 4A/2011 ex officio v. Cherecheş. 

12 

 
 
 
                                                 
RÉSUMÉ  

1. Introduction 

Bien qu’il s’agisse théoriquement d’une société plurielle,13 l’approche du principe d’égalité 
et  de  non-discrimination  a  été  marquée  en  Roumanie  par  trois  périodes  historiques. 
Premièrement,  la  société  roumaine  a  dû  composer  avec  l’expérience  communiste, 
caractérisée  par  un  discours  d’égalité  imposé  mais  contredit  de  facto  par  des  politiques 
assimilationnistes agressives vis-à-vis des minorités nationales ou ethniques, par un refus 
de reconnaître les Roms en tant que minorité ethnique, par une pénalisation des activités 
homosexuelles  consensuelles  et  par  un  déni  de  liberté  religieuse.  Deuxièmement,  la 
Roumanie a dû composer avec la transition amorcée en 1989. Il s’est agi d’une période de 
prise  de  conscience  de  la  situation  des  minorités  s’accompagnant  d’un  processus 
d’affirmation des droits de ces groupes et des principes d’égalité et de non-discrimination, 
y compris l’adoption en 2000 de la loi antidiscrimination. La troisième période, qui a suivi 
l’adhésion à l’UE en 2007, constitue une phase de régression en matière de protection des 
droits de l’homme ainsi que de résurgence de discours et de comportements nationalistes 
et extrémistes à l’égard des groupes vulnérables, et notamment des Roms, des personnes 
LGBT et des minorités religieuses. Cette phase de régression a été particulièrement visible 
durant les années électorales.  

La  loi  antidiscrimination  roumaine  (Ordonnance  gouvernementale  n° 137/2000)  a  été 
adoptée en 2000 en tant que législation secondaire et ultérieurement modifiée, les trois 
séries  d’amendements  les  plus  récents  ayant  découlé  en  2013  de  l’issue  de  procédures 
engagées devant la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) dans le cadre de l’affaire 
C-81/12.14  L’adoption  du  texte  initial  en  2000  a  eu  lieu  dans  un  climat  sensible.  Les 
discussions se tenant en parallèle à propos des deux directives européennes en matière 
d’égalité  ont  influencé  le  libellé  de  la  loi  roumaine  dont  les  dispositions  vont,  à  des 
nombreux  égards,  au-delà  de  l’acquis.  Quinze  ans  après  l’adoption  de  la  loi 
antidiscrimination,  la  Roumanie  reste  entachée  de  discrimination.  La  minorité  rom,  à 
propos  de  laquelle  les  statistiques  officielles  sont  contestées  mais  qui  est  considérée 
comme la plus importante d’Europe, se heurte à une discrimination en termes d’accès à 
l’emploi,  aux  soins  de  santé,  aux  biens  et  aux  services,  au  logement,  y  compris  aux 
logements  publics,  et  à  l’éducation.  La  législation  roumaine  en  matière  de  logement  ne 
mentionne  les  Roms  dans  aucune  de  ses  dispositions  sociales,  ce  qui  engendre  une 
discrimination indirecte. La plupart des affaires portées devant l’organisme national pour 
l’égalité, à savoir le Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination, font état d’atteintes 
au droit à la dignité. La résurgence du discours nationaliste extrémiste associé à la vague 
d’incendies criminels et de violence collective du début des années 1990 à l’encontre des 
communautés  roms,  a  imprégné  la  sphère  publique,  en  particulier  dans  le  contexte  des 
incidents qui ont éclaté dans le nord-ouest de la Roumanie. Des articles de presse faisant 
état de l’inquiétude des Italiens, des Français, des Britanniques et des Allemands à propos 
des  Roms  roumains  ont  été  autant  d’occasions  nouvelles  de  déclarations  publiques 
discriminatoires  à  l’encontre  de  cette  communauté,  y  compris  par  des  responsables 
officiels. Cette acceptation progressive du racisme a conduit en 2011 à présenter comme 

13   Selon le recensement national de 2011, la population roumaine comprend 88,9 % de Roumains, 6,5 % de 
Hongrois, 2,46 % de Roms et moins de 1 % d’Ukrainiens, d’Allemands, de Russes, de Turcs, de Tatars, de 
Serbes, de Slovaques, de Croates, de Juifs, d’Arméniens et de Bulgares. Informations disponibles sur: 
http://www.edrc.ro/recensamant.jsp?language=0.  

14   Roumanie, l’Ordonnance gouvernementale n° 137/2000 sur la prévention et la sanction de toutes les formes 

de discrimination (Ordonanța de Guvern 137/2000 privind prevenirea și sancționarea tuturor 
formelor de discriminare) a été publiée au Monitorul Oficial al României n° 431 de septembre 2000. 
Amendements les plus récents: Roumanie, loi n° 61/2013 du 21 mars 2013 modifiant l’Ordonnance 
gouvernementale n° 137/2000 sur la prévention et la sanction de toutes les formes de discrimination; et 
Roumanie, Ordonnance d’urgence n° 19/2013 du 27 mars 2013 modifiant l’Ordonnance gouvernementale 
n° 137/2000 sur la prévention et la sanction de toutes les formes de discrimination. 

13 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
une «mesure de sécurité» la construction d’un mur de près de 100 mètres de long et 1,8 
à 2 mètres de hauteur à Baia Mare.15 

Tout en étant expressément protégées par la loi antidiscrimination, les minorités sexuelles 
restent le groupe le plus ciblé par les attaques: des propositions de loi visent à limiter leurs 
droits et les agressions dont elles sont victimes chaque année lors d’actions organisées par 
des  ONG  sont  classées  sans  suite  ou  restent  impunies.  Le  nouveau  code  civil  entré  en 
vigueur en 2011 interdit spécifiquement le partenariat ou le mariage entre personnes de 
même  sexe,  y  compris  la  reconnaissance  de  partenariats  et  de  mariages  homosexuels 
légalement enregistrés à l’étranger (même lorsqu’ils sont contractés entre étrangers). Les 
transsexuels  ne  peuvent  davantage  prétendre  à  la  moindre  protection  juridique,  étant 
donné  que  la  législation  roumaine  ne  contient  aucune  procédure  claire  et  prévisible,  ni 
aucune norme applicable à leur situation.  

Les  programmes  spécifiques  et  les  actions  positives  à  l’intention  des  personnes 
handicapées  ou  séropositives  sont  rares  et  ne  répondent  toujours  pas  à  l’ensemble  des 
problèmes rencontrés. Bien qu’elle l’ait signée en septembre 2007, la Roumanie n’a ratifié 
qu’en novembre 2010 la Convention des Nations unies relative aux droits des personnes 
handicapées.  Aucune  législation  n’a  été  adoptée  par  la  suite  dans  une  perspective 
d’harmonisation et la traduction officielle s’écarte du texte de la Convention. La législation 
roumaine  continue  d’utiliser  la  notion  de  «handicap»  d’une  manière  qui  favorise  une 
approche à focalisation médicale.  

L’organisme national pour l’égalité (le Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination) a 
contribué  au  processus  de  dialogue  et  de  consultation  avec  les  ONG  et  les  partenaires 
sociaux,  mais  il  a  lui-même  été  mis  en  difficulté  du  fait  qu’il  manque  de  ressources 
humaines et matérielles et qu’il fait l’objet d’une politisation croissante au niveau de son 
comité directeur en raison du processus de nomination de ses membres. 

2. Législation principale 

La  Constitution  roumaine  garantit  l’égalité  de  traitement  de  tous  les  citoyens  en  son 
article 4, paragraphe 2, qui prévoit la citoyenneté sans aucune discrimination fondée sur 
la  race,  la  nationalité,  l’origine  ethnique,  la  langue,  la  religion,  le  sexe,  les  opinions, 
l’allégeance politique, la fortune ou l’origine sociale, ainsi qu’en son article 16 qui prévoit 
l’égalité de tous les citoyens devant la loi et les autorités publiques, sans aucun privilège 
ni  aucune  discrimination.  L’article 30,  paragraphe 7,  interdit  «toute  instigation  […]  à  la 
haine  nationale,  raciale,  de  classe  ou  religieuse,  ainsi  que  toute  incitation  à  la 
discrimination». Il a été proposé lors des débats intervenus en 2013 à propos d’une révision 
constitutionnelle,  d’étendre  la  liste  des  motifs  protégés  au-delà  de  ceux  figurant  à 
l’article 21 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’UE, mais d’en exclure l’orientation 
sexuelle – laquelle avait été initialement incluse avant d’être supprimée par la commission 
parlementaire. 

La Roumanie a signé les principaux instruments européens et internationaux en matière 
de  droits  de  l’homme  et  sa  Constitution  affirme  que  les  dispositions  constitutionnelles 
relatives  aux  droits  des  citoyens  seront  interprétées  et  appliquées  conformément  à  la 
Déclaration  universelle  des  droits  de  l’homme,  ainsi  qu’aux  pactes  et  autres  traités 
auxquels  la  Roumanie  est  partie.  L’article 20  de  la  Constitution  prévoit  également  la 
primauté  des  réglementations  internationales  en  cas  d’incohérence  entre  les  traités  en 
matière de droits fondamentaux auxquels la Roumanie est partie et sa législation nationale, 

15   Le Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination a condamné l’édification de ce mur, mais la Cour d’appel 
a cassé cette décision. En 2013, la Haute Cour de cassation et de justice a confirmé en définitive la sanction 
imposée au maire de Baia Mare par le Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination. Dans une procédure 
judiciaire distincte visant à faire démolir le mur de séparation, toutefois, le tribunal de Bucarest a confirmé 
la légalité du mur, qui est toujours debout. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
à moins que les dispositions contenues dans la Constitution ou les lois nationales ne soient 
plus favorables.  

Parallèlement  à  la  loi  antidiscrimination  proprement  dite  (Ordonnance  gouvernementale 
n° 137/2000),  le  code  civil  autorise  les  actions  en  réparation  (y  compris  lorsque  le 
préjudice découle d’une discrimination) et le code pénal comporte des dispositions stipulant 
des circonstances aggravantes lorsque l’intention criminelle se fonde sur l’un quelconque 
des motifs protégés par la loi antidiscrimination.  

Le  nouveau  code  pénal  entré  en  vigueur  en  février  2014  prévoit  une  protection  contre 
l’incitation à la discrimination, aux crimes haineux et aux pratiques abusives avec intention 
discriminatoire  dans  l’exercice  d’une  fonction  officielle  –  dispositions  dont  l’applicabilité 
reste toutefois limitée comme en témoignent les statistiques en la matière communiquées 
par le procureur général. 

Le  code  du  travail,  tel  que  modifié  en  2011,  contient  des  interdictions  générales  de 
discrimination  dans  l’emploi.  La  loi  sur  l’égalité  des  chances  entre  les  femmes  et  les 
hommes  reproduit  certaines  dispositions  de  la  loi  antidiscrimination,  mais  elle  est 
dépourvue  des  voies  de  recours  efficaces  et  des  mécanismes  appropriés  qui  en 
permettraient la mise en œuvre. L’organisme national pour l’égalité couvre de facto tous 
les motifs de discrimination.  

La Cour constitutionnelle a procédé en 2008 et 2009, dans le cadre d’une série d’affaires, 
à une révision de la loi antidiscrimination dont l’application a été partiellement restreinte. 
Cette  restriction  d’applicabilité  décidée  par  la  Cour  concerne  les  actes  législatifs  (lois  et 
ordonnances),  la  disposition  pertinente  de  la  loi  antidiscrimination  ayant  été  déclarée 
inconstitutionnelle  en  étant  interprétée  comme  habilitant  les  juridictions  ou  le  Conseil 
national  de 
légales 
discriminatoires.  Ceci  étant  dit,  tant  en  2008 qu’en  2009,  le  rôle  du  Conseil  national  de 
lutte contre la discrimination en qualité d’instance quasi-judiciaire a été confirmé lors du 
processus de révision déclenché par des plaintes mettant en cause la constitutionnalité du 
mandat de cet organisme. La loi antidiscrimination a été modifiée à plusieurs reprises, et 
trois  amendements  récents  effectués  en  2013  ont  veillé  à  y  incorporer  les  définitions 
européennes. 

invalider  des  dispositions 

la  discrimination  à 

lutte  contre 

3. Principes généraux et définitions 

La  loi  antidiscrimination  introduit  une  définition  large  et  générale  de  la  discrimination 
directe qui va au-delà du fond et de la portée des directives 43/2000/CE et 78/2000/CE.16 
Alors que la liste des motifs protégés est déjà très généreuse et inclut d’autres motifs que 
les  cinq  visés  par  les  directives,  l’expression  fourre-tout  «tout  autre  critère»  a  donné  la 
possibilité aux tribunaux roumains ou à l’organisme national pour l’égalité d’appliquer la 
loi antidiscrimination à toute une série de catégories allant au-delà de la simple expérience 
d’une discrimination et faisant de la norme antidiscrimination un large principe d’égalité – 
une «hyperinflation» de motifs qui risque d’avoir une incidence négative sur l’applicabilité 
de la loi.  

16   Roumanie, la loi antidiscrimination (Ordonnance gouvernementale n° 137/2000) sanctionne «toute 

différence de traitement, exclusion, restriction ou préférence fondée sur la race, la nationalité, l’origine 
ethnique, la langue, la religion, le statut social, les convictions, le genre, l’orientation sexuelle, l’âge, un 
handicap, une maladie chronique, la séropositivité, l’appartenance à un groupe défavorisé ou tout autre 
critère ayant pour but ou pour effet de restreindre ou d’empêcher l’égalité de reconnaissance, l’usage ou 
l’exercice des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales dans les domaines politique, économique, 
social et culturel, ou tout autre domaine de la vie publique».   

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
La loi définit depuis 2006 la discrimination indirecte17 ainsi que le harcèlement.18  

Le harcèlement est également puni par la loi sur l’égalité des chances et par le code pénal, 
mais aucune des définitions n’est totalement conforme à celle énoncée dans les directives. 

La rétorsion est définie comme tout traitement défavorable engendré par le dépôt d’une 
plainte auprès du Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination ou par l’engagement 
d’une  action  en  justice  pour  violation  du  principe  d’égalité  de  traitement  et  de  non-
discrimination. L’injonction de discriminer est définie comme un «ordre» de discriminer, ce 
qui  pourrait  demander  une  clarification  complémentaire.  La  discrimination  multiple  est 
définie  et  constitue  une  circonstance  aggravante  en  cas  de  discrimination;  ceci  dit, 
l’application  de  cette  disposition  reste  rare  dans  la  jurisprudence  du  Conseil  national  de 
lutte contre la discrimination, ce qui suggère un manque de compréhension du concept.  

La loi antidiscrimination a été modifiée en 2013 afin d’y inclure une définition des exigences 
professionnelles  essentielles  et  déterminantes,  laquelle  doit  encore  faire  l’objet  d’une 
interprétation.  Cette  loi  ne  mentionne  pas  l’aménagement  raisonnable,  mais  inclut 
spécifiquement  une  définition  des  mesures  positives.  L’aménagement  raisonnable  est 
défini dans la législation relative aux droits des personnes handicapées en tant que facilité 
pour  le  salarié  mais  pas  en  tant  qu’obligation  pour  l’employeur.19  Les  notions  exposées 
dans la Recommandation de politique générale n° 7 de la Commission européenne contre 
le racisme et l’intolérance (ECRI) ne sont pas clairement énoncées dans la loi roumaine, 
même si certaines d’entre elles ont été incorporées par le Conseil national de lutte contre 
la  discrimination  dans  sa  jurisprudence,  et  en  particulier  la  ségrégation  dans 
l’enseignement; la discrimination par association; l’intention proclamée de pratiquer une 
discrimination; l’injonction de discriminer; l’incitation à pratiquer une discrimination; et le 
fait d’aider une autre personne à pratiquer une discrimination. Une affaire a fait en 2011 
les grands titres des médias nationaux en mettant en lumière la non-inclusion dans la loi 
de l’interdiction de ségrégation résidentielle, une forme de discrimination répandue vis-à-
vis des Roms. Le Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination a sanctionné l’affaire en 
tant que discrimination, et les tribunaux ont, en définitive, confirmé cette décision.20 

4. Champ d’application matériel 

Le champ d’application matériel de la loi antidiscrimination roumaine englobe les domaines 
protégés par la directive 43/2000/CE et par la directive 78/2000/CE. Elle va au-delà de ces 
domaines dans la mesure où elle prévoit en outre une protection par rapport à la liberté 
de  circulation  ainsi  qu’une  protection  du  droit  à  la  dignité.  Le  législateur  a  défini  la 
discrimination en optant pour une approche globale, et le principe d’égalité et l’interdiction 
de  discrimination  s’appliquent  à  l’ensemble  des  droits  fondamentaux  et  des  libertés 
fondamentales. Tant les acteurs du secteur public que ceux du secteur privé sont tenus de 
respecter la loi antidiscrimination (Ordonnance gouvernementale n° 137/2000). 

Il  découle  des  arrêts  prononcés  par  la  Cour  constitutionnelle  de  Roumanie  en  2008  et 
confirmés en 2009 que les dispositions de la loi antidiscrimination ne s’appliquent pas aux 
situations  discriminatoires  causées  par  des  dispositions  législatives  discriminatoires  (lois 

17   La discrimination indirecte est définie comme «toute disposition, tout critère ou toute pratique 

apparemment neutre qui désavantage des personnes en raison de leur appartenance à l’un des groupes 
protégés, à moins que cette disposition, ce critère ou cette pratique ne soit objectivement justifié par un but 
légitime et que les moyens utilisés pour atteindre ce but soient appropriés et nécessaires». 

18   Le harcèlement est défini et sanctionné comme étant «tout comportement fondé sur des motifs de race, de 

nationalité, d’origine ethnique, de langue, de religion, de statut social, de convictions, de genre, 
d’orientation sexuelle, d’appartenance à un groupe défavorisé, d’âge, de handicap, de statut de réfugié ou 
de demandeur d’asile, ou de tout autre critère qui a pour effet d’instaurer un environnement intimidant, 
hostile, dégradant ou offensant». 

19   Roumanie, loi n° 448/2006 relative à la protection et à la promotion des droits des personnes handicapées 

(6 décembre 2006). 

20   Roumanie, Haute Cour de cassation et de justice, affaire 1741/33/2011, arrêt n° 640 du 27 septembre 

2013. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ou  législation  secondaire)  et  que  les  tribunaux  et  le  Conseil  national  de  lutte  contre  la 
discrimination  ne  sont  pas  habilités  à  invalider  ou  refuser  l’application  de  dispositions 
légales lorsqu’ils estiment qu’elles sont discriminatoires. Si lors de procédures judiciaires 
toute  partie  peut  demander  que  la  Cour  constitutionnelle  soit  saisie  de  l’affaire  pour  en 
établir  le  caractère  inconstitutionnel,  cette  option  n’est  pas  prévue  lors  de  procédures 
devant  le  Conseil  national  de  lutte  contre  la  discrimination,  lequel  n’a  pas  de  statut 
constitutionnel. Le Médiateur, habilité à cette fin, n’a pas signalé à ce jour avoir fait usage 
de  cette  compétence  pour  soumettre  une  législation  discriminatoire  à  la  Cour 
constitutionnelle.  

5. Mise en application de la loi 

La loi antidiscrimination institue un double système de recours: la victime peut à son choix 
déposer une plainte auprès du Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination en suivant 
la  filière  administrative  et/ou  une  plainte  au  civil  en  dommages  et  intérêts  devant  les 
tribunaux  (avec  exonération  des  droits  de  timbre  dans  les  deux  cas).  La  victime  peut 
également décider de s’adresser simultanément au Conseil et à la justice, ce qui suscite 
certaines difficultés pratiques  et grève les  ressources déjà limitées du premier  car il est 
invité  à  participer  aux  procédures  civiles  en  qualité  d’expert.  L’éventualité  d’obtenir  des 
arrêts contradictoires à l’issue de procédures parallèles pose également problème. 

Toute personne physique ou morale ayant un intérêt dans une affaire, y compris des ONG 
de défense des droits de l’homme et des groupes minoritaires, peut déposer plainte auprès 
du Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination dans un délai d’un an à compter de la 
date à laquelle l’acte présumé discriminatoire a été commis. Ce Conseil peut également 
engager  une  action  d’office.  Il  dispose  de  90 jours  pour  instruire  l’affaire,  organiser  des 
audiences et établir si les dispositions antidiscrimination ont été ou non violées. Lorsque le 
Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination constate l’existence d’une discrimination, 
il peut infliger une sanction administrative (avertissement ou amende). Il est possible de 
faire appel des décisions du Conseil devant les tribunaux administratifs. Si la victime est 
une personne physique, le montant de l’amende, tel que modifié en 2013, s’échelonne de 
250  à  7 500 euros  (1 000  à  30 000  RON);  si  les  victimes  sont  un  groupe  ou  une 
communauté, l’amende va de 500 à 25 000 euros (2 000 à 100 000 RON).  

Le Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination a également développé une pratique 
consistant  à  émettre  des  recommandations  qui  ne  sont  assorties  d’aucune  pénalité 
financière ou administrative, en particulier dans des actions intentées contre les autorités 
publiques, mais également lorsque les délais de procédure n’ont pas été pas respectés. Le 
Conseil a justifié cette manière de procéder en invoquant les règles de prescription fixées 
par le régime contraventionnel général. Cette décision a néanmoins eu pour effet de mettre 
en  question  le  caractère  efficace,  proportionné  et  dissuasif  des  sanctions  en  cas  de 
discrimination.  Les  amendements  apportés  à  la  loi  en  2013  ont  répondu  à  cette 
problématique en incluant un délai légal de prescription de six mois pour l’application d’une 
sanction – calculé à partir de la date de publication de la décision du Conseil national de 
lutte  contre  la  discrimination  –  remplaçant  ainsi  le  délai  de  prescription  administratif 
controversé; cet aspect a également été examiné par la Cour de justice dans l’affaire C-
81/12.  Les  victimes  réclamant  réparation  pour  discrimination  doivent  déposer  plainte 
auprès  des  juridictions  civiles  (une  décision  du  Conseil  national  de  lutte  contre  la 
discrimination n’est pas requise, mais elle peut jouer un rôle important pour établir s’il y a 
eu discrimination et pour déterminer le montant des dommages et intérêts). Le Conseil est 
appelé en qualité d’expert.  

Le  plaignant  peut,  dans  le  cas  d’une  action  civile  en  dommages-intérêts,  réclamer  une 
indemnisation  pécuniaire  et  morale  ainsi  que  d’autres  types  de  sanctions  (retrait  ou 
suspension de licences  d’entités privées  offrant des  services, par exemple). En vertu de 
l’article 27  de  la  loi  antidiscrimination,  les  cours  et  tribunaux  peuvent  ordonner  aux 
autorités  publiques  de  retirer  ou  de  suspendre  le  permis  d’exploitation  de  personnes 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
morales qui ont causé un préjudice important en raison d’un acte discriminatoire ou qui 
enfreignent régulièrement les dispositions de la législation antidiscrimination. 

Une victime de discrimination peut décider de demander à une ONG de défense des droits 
de l’homme de la représenter, ou engager plutôt des poursuites en son nom propre. Elle 
peut  choisir  de  communiquer  de  manière  confidentielle  avec  le  Conseil  national  de  lutte 
contre la discrimination afin de ne pas attirer l’attention des médias, comme le prévoient 
les procédures du Conseil. La même demande  de confidentialité peut être adressée aux 
tribunaux et il appartient alors au juge de décider si les procédures se dérouleront à huis 
clos.  L’amendement  apporté  en  2006  à  la  loi  antidiscrimination  autorise  spécifiquement 
l’utilisation  de  tout  type  de  preuve  dans  les  affaires  de  discrimination,  y  compris  des 
enregistrements audio et vidéo, et des données statistiques; le Conseil national de lutte 
contre  la  discrimination  recourt  aux  statistiques  en  tant  qu’éléments  probants,  comme 
l’atteste  sa  jurisprudence.  Si  le  Conseil  et  (surtout)  les  ONG  de  défense  des  droits  des 
Roms ont recouru par le passé aux tests de situation, cette méthode n’a pas été utilisée 
lors d’affaires plus récentes. 

L’amendement  de  la  loi  antidiscrimination  effectué  en  2013  redéfinit  la  charge  de  la 
preuve.21  La  jurisprudence  du  Conseil  de  lutte  contre  la  discrimination  interprète  les 
dispositions relatives à la charge de la preuve conformément aux directives dans certains 
cas, mais pas systématiquement – le Conseil laissant souvent cette charge aux plaignants.  

Les ONG sont habilitées à ester en justice et peuvent engager des poursuites au nom ou 
en  soutien  de  victimes  de  discrimination.  Les  sanctions  prévues  dans  ce  contexte  sont 
néanmoins limitées dans la mesure où il faut qu’il y ait préjudice personnel  pour que les 
tribunaux ordonnent une indemnisation. 

On ne dispose d’aucun bilan précis ni d’aucune évaluation concernant les sanctions infligées 
par les juridictions en cas de discrimination. On peut conclure sur la base du nombre limité 
de  dossiers  publiquement  disponibles,  que  les  tribunaux  ont  fixé  un  plafond  de 
10 000 euros pour ce qui concerne les dommages moraux – montant maximum qui a été 
accordé dans un nombre limité de cas. Les dommages pécuniaires doivent être prouvés 
selon la procédure habituelle en matière de responsabilité civile. 

Même en l’absence de publication en ligne de l’ensemble des décisions des tribunaux et du 
Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination, et en l’absence de suivi de l’application 
de ces décisions, il semblerait, sur la base d’informations concernant des récidivistes, que 
les sanctions ne soient pas encore proportionnées, dissuasives et efficaces. 

6. Organismes de promotion de l’égalité de traitement 

L’organisme  national  pour  l’égalité,  à  savoir  le  Conseil  national  pour  la  lutte  contre  la 
discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării) a été institué en 2000 
par la loi antidiscrimination, mais il n’a été effectivement mis en place que dans le courant 
de l’automne 2002.  Il a commencé à  ouvrir des bureaux régionaux à partir de 2007,  et 
deux sont opérationnels à ce jour.  

Le  Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination est une autorité publique autonome 
placée  sous  le  contrôle  du  parlement  dont  l’indépendance  est  consacrée  par  la  loi 
antidiscrimination.  La  nomination  des  membres  de  son  comité  directeur  par  les  six 
indépendance 
commissions  parlementaires  pertinentes, 

censée  garantir 

son 

21   Le nouveau libellé de la charge de la preuve dispose que «la personne concernée doit présenter des faits 

conduisant à présumer l’existence d’une discrimination directe ou indirecte, et que la personne à l’encontre 
de laquelle la plainte a été déposée a l’obligation de prouver qu’il n’y a pas eu de non-respect du principe de 
l’égalité de traitement. Tout élément de preuve peut être présenté au comité directeur du Conseil (aux 
tribunaux) dans le respect du régime constitutionnel des droits fondamentaux, y compris des 
enregistrements audio et vidéo et des données statistiques.» 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
institutionnelle, s’est avérée constituer une entrave dans la pratique puisque la politisation 
de ce processus de nomination a eu pour effet que le Conseil s’est trouvé paralysé depuis 
l’été 2009 jusqu’en avril 2010. Les nominations effectuées en avril 2010 ont été critiquées 
par les ONG et par des candidats indépendants qui ont fait valoir que le non-respect des 
exigences  légales  et  la  politisation  de  la  procédure  nuisaient  fortement  à  la 
professionnalisation requise. Des voix à l’encontre de la politisation de l’institution se sont 
également fait entendre au sein même du Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination, 
y compris celle de son président. Les trois nouvelles nominations intervenues en 2012 ont 
suscité des réactions mitigées: deux des candidats relevaient de nominations politiques et 
ne  présentaient  qu’une  expérience  pertinente  limitée,  mais  le  troisième  était  un  expert 
réputé en matière de non-discrimination, dont le mandat a été renouvelé en raison de ses 
compétences et de son engagement – et en dépit de son absence d’allégeance politique. 

Le  mandat  du  Conseil  national  de  lutte  contre  la  discrimination  englobe  le  soutien  aux 
victimes de discrimination par l’apport d’une assistance indépendante; la prévention de la 
discrimination  au  travers  d’une  sensibilisation  et  de  la  réalisation  d’analyses  et  d’autres 
travaux de recherche; la collecte de données pertinentes; des études indépendantes et des 
rapports  indépendants;  la  médiation  entre  parties;  des  enquêtes  et  l’application  de 
sanctions  en  cas  de  discrimination;  et  l’initiative  de  propositions  législatives  visant  à 
assurer l’harmonisation des dispositions légales avec le principe d’égalité. Concrètement, 
le rôle principal du Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination est celui d’une instance 
quasi-judiciaire  habilitée  à  établir  si  certains  actes  ou  procédures  constituent  une 
discrimination et à prendre subséquemment des sanctions administratives (avertissements 
ou amendes).  

La  visibilité  du  Conseil  national  de  lutte  contre  la  discrimination  s’est  accrue  de  façon 
exponentielle au cours des six dernières années à la suite d’une série d’affaires impliquant 
des politiciens roumains de premier plan (le Président, le Premier ministre, deux anciens 
ministres  des  Affaires  étrangères  et  un  membre  du  Parlement  européen),  ainsi  que 
d’affaires ayant fortement mobilisé l’attention des médias (décision concernant la présence 
de symboles religieux dans les classes d’écoles publiques, affaires de ségrégation scolaire, 
décisions  à  l’encontre  de  divers  clubs  de  sport  notamment)  et  de  prises  de  positions 
publiques  à  l’encontre  de  comportements  racistes  et  populistes.  L’institution  est 
progressivement devenue un acteur proactif qui, engagé dans une  multitude de projets, 
s’impose aujourd’hui comme un interlocuteur sérieux dans la lutte contre la discrimination 
dans un contexte extrêmement sensible.  

7. Points essentiels 

La non-adoption de sanctions qui soient dissuasives, proportionnées et efficaces 

a. 
La pratique du Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination consistant à sanctionner 
les  cas  de  discrimination  au  moyen  d’avertissements  administratifs  ou  de 
recommandations  seulement,  sans  infliger  d’amendes  administratives,  tend  à  éroder  le 
caractère  efficace,  proportionné  et  dissuasif  des  sanctions  qu’il  prononce.  Les 
avertissements  ne  sont  pas  assortis  de  pénalités  financières  et  rien  n’est  prévu  pour 
assurer  le  suivi  des  auteurs  de  faits  discriminatoires  en  vue  d’assurer  l’application  des 
sanctions et de prévenir toute nouvelle discrimination.  

b. 

Le Conseil national pour la lutte contre la discrimination et les tribunaux ne peuvent 
statuer  contre  une  discrimination  et  la  sanctionner  lorsque  des  dispositions 
législatives discriminatoires sont en cause  

Le  fait  que  la  Cour  constitutionnelle  roumaine  ait  restreint  la  portée  de  la  loi 
antidiscrimination dans une série d’arrêts prononcés en 2008 et 2009, lesquels ont limité 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
le mandat à la fois du Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination22 et des juridictions 
civiles  pour  ce  qui  concerne  la  discrimination  découlant  de  dispositions  législatives,  23  a 
créé un vide en termes de protection contre la discrimination. Le Conseil national de lutte 
contre  la  discrimination  n’est  pas  habilité  à  saisir  la  Cour  constitutionnelle  en  vue  d’une 
révision constitutionnelle lorsqu’il constate des normes discriminatoires.   

 Certains concepts juridiques doivent encore être éclaircis et interprétés 

c. 
Aucune  des  définitions  du  harcèlement  figurant  dans  les  différentes  normes  pertinentes 
(loi antidiscrimination, loi sur l’égalité des chances, code pénal) n’est totalement conforme 
à la définition du harcèlement figurant à l’article 2, paragraphe 3, des directives relatives 
à  l’égalité.  La  loi  antidiscrimination  roumaine  utilise  le  terme  «ordre»  au  lieu  du  terme 
«injonction»  à  l’article 2,  ce  qui  pourrait  conduire  à  une  interprétation  restrictive  de 
l’injonction de discriminer en limitant l’interdiction aux relations hiérarchiques. 

Le concept d’aménagement raisonnable pour les personnes handicapées ne figure pas dans 
la loi antidiscrimination roumaine; il est actuellement défini dans la législation spéciale sur 
la  promotion  et  la  protection  des  droits  des  personnes  handicapées,  mais  sans  aucune 
disposition en matière de sanctions.  

 Limitations institutionnelles de l’organisme national pour l’égalité 

d. 
Étant donné que, bien que cela soit prévu par la loi antidiscrimination, le Conseil national 
de  lutte  contre  la  discrimination  n’a  pas  encore  instauré  à  ce  jour  de  mécanisme 
opérationnel pour surveiller les infractions à la législation et le respect de ses décisions, il 
s’avère  difficile  de  mesurer  la  performance  de  sa  mission  et  le  caractère  efficace, 
proportionné et dissuasif des sanctions qu’il prononce. 

La paralysie institutionnelle que le Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination a connu 
entre l’été 2009  et avril 2010 parce qu’un blocage politique a empêché le parlement de 
nommer de nouveaux membres auprès de son comité directeur, ainsi que les protestations 
exprimées par les ONG lors de la nomination de six nouveaux membres en avril 2010 parce 
que  certains  d’entre  eux  ne  satisfaisaient  pas  aux  critères  légaux  de  compétence,  ont 
montré que la désignation des membres du comité directeur du Conseil par le parlement, 
censée être une garantie d’indépendance institutionnelle, constitue en réalité une entrave. 
L’évolution  vers  une  politisation  de  l’institution  a  été  confirmée  par  deux  nouvelles 
nominations  politiques  en  2012  et  le  renouvellement  du  mandat  d’un  seul  expert 
indépendant, et par les critiques exprimées au sein même du Conseil. Cette politisation du 
comité directeur s’est manifestée dans plusieurs domaines: décisions controversées dans 
des  affaires  impliquant  des  politiciens;  abandon  de  sanctions  efficaces  au  profit  de 
recommandations n’ayant aucun effet légal; qualité du raisonnement juridique; nombre de 
décisions du Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination confirmées par les tribunaux 
après avoir fait l’objet d’un appel. 

Le  budget  du  Conseil  national  de  lutte  contre  la  discrimination  a  été  en  constante 
diminution depuis début 2009, époque à laquelle il a été réduit de 30 %. Des restrictions 
budgétaires  de  10 %  ont  été  appliquées  ensuite.  Selon  le  Conseil,  aucun  nouveau 
personnel n’a été engagé pour l’institution en raison de ces coupes budgétaires ainsi que 
d’une interdiction générale d’embauche dans le réseau public – interdiction qui fait partie 
des mesures de réforme adoptées en réponse à la crise financière. Plusieurs activités du 

22   Roumanie, Cour constitutionnelle (Curtea Constituţională), arrêt n° 997 du 7 septembre 2008 constatant le 

caractère inconstitutionnel de l’article 20, paragraphe 3, de la loi antidiscrimination (Ordonnance 
gouvernementale n° 137/2000) qui définit le mandat du Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination 
pour ce qui concerne la discrimination découlant de dispositions législatives. 

23   Roumanie, Cour constitutionnelle (Curtea Constituţională), arrêts n° 818, 819 et 820 du 3 juillet 2008. La 
Cour constitutionnelle conclut en l’espèce que les dispositions de l’article 1, paragraphe 2, et de l’article 27 
de la loi antidiscrimination (Ordonnance gouvernementale n° 137/2000) sont inconstitutionnelles dans la 
mesure où elles sont interprétées comme impliquant que les tribunaux sont habilités à invalider ou à refuser 
l’application de dispositions législatives lorsqu’ils estiment que les dispositions en question sont 
discriminatoires. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination (enquêtes ou campagnes de sensibilisation 
notamment) ont été affectées en outre par la pénurie de fonds ou par des retards dans 
leur mise à disposition en raison de procédures financières complexes. 

Insuffisance de données sur l’égalité 

e. 
Une  mauvaise  interprétation  de  la  législation  relative  à  la  protection  des  données  à 
caractère personnel conduit à une absence généralisée de données de qualité, lesquelles 
faciliteraient  le  développement  de  politiques  publiques  répondant  aux  besoins  des 
différents groupes vulnérables; permettraient un suivi adéquat des mesures spéciales; ou 
pourraient servir à prouver l’existence d’une discrimination devant un tribunal ou devant 
le Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination.  

f. 

Pratique nouvelle consistant à réclamer des preuves en cas d’atteinte au droit à la 
dignité 

La  législation  antidiscrimination  roumaine  s’applique  à  une  liste  ouverte  de  critères  de 
protection  allant  au-delà  de  ceux  visés  par  les  directives,  et  la  loi  antidiscrimination 
s’applique à des domaines en dehors de ceux couverts par les directives. Le fait que les 
dispositions légales roumaines aillent plus loin que les exigences minimales des directives 
et,  surtout,  qu’elles  mettent  l’accent  sur  le  «droit  à  la  dignité»  dans  la  lutte  contre 
discrimination,  renforce  l’efficacité  des  mécanismes  antidiscrimination  et  contribue  à 
accroître la visibilité du Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination et la connaissance 
des dispositions de la loi antidiscrimination. Le «droit à la dignité» a été invoqué dans des 
cas où les dispositions légales n’étaient pas totalement suffisantes,  et notamment dans 
l’affaire relative au mur de séparation bâti à Baia Mare pour isoler la communauté rom.24 
On observe toutefois, en rapport avec le droit à la dignité, le développement d’une pratique 
inquiétante de la part du Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination et de la part des 
tribunaux,  qui  consiste  à  exiger  du  plaignant  qu’il  fournisse  la  preuve  que  la  partie 
défenderesse avait véritablement une intention de discrimination. 

24   Conseil national de lutte contre la discrimination, décision n° 439 du 15 novembre 2011 dans le dossier 

n° 4A/2011 ex officio c. Cherecheş. 

21 

 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG  

1. Einleitung 

Theoretisch  ist  Rumänien  eine  pluralistische  Gesellschaft25.  Allerdings  durchlief  das 
Verständnis der Prinzipien von Gleichbehandlung und Nichtdiskriminierung drei historische 
Phasen. Zunächst musste Rumänien die kommunistische Erfahrung aufarbeiten. Diese war 
geprägt  von  einer  erzwungenen  Rhetorik  der  Gleichheit,  die  de  facto  aber  durch  eine 
aggressive  Assimilationspolitik  gegenüber  nationalen  oder  ethnischen  Minderheiten,  die 
Nichtanerkennung  der  Roma  als  ethnische  Minderheit,  die  Kriminalisierung 
einvernehmlicher homosexueller Handlungen und fehlende Religionsfreiheit konterkariert 
wurde.  Zweitens  hat  Rumänien  noch  immer  nicht  die  politischen  Reformprozesse 
abgeschlossen,  die  im  Jahr  1989  begannen.  In  ihrem  Verlauf  wurde  der  Lage  von 
Minderheiten  mehr  Beachtung  geschenkt,  wobei  die  Rechte  dieser  Gruppen  und  die 
Grundsätze  der  Gleichbehandlung  und  Nichtdiskriminierung  gestärkt  wurden.  In  diese 
Phase fällt auch die Verabschiedung des Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes im Jahr 2000. Nach 
dem Beitritt zur EU im Jahr 2007 begann  einer Phase der Rückschritte beim Schutz der 
Menschenrechte und eine  Wiederbelebung nationalistischer und  rechtsextremer Rhetorik 
und Verhaltensweisen gegenüber benachteiligten Gruppen, insbesondere gegenüber den 
Roma, LGTB-Personen  und religiösen Minderheiten. Diese Regression  war in Wahljahren 
besonders stark zu spüren.  

Das  rumänische  Antidiskriminierungsgesetz,  die  Regierungsverordnung  137/2000  (GO 
137/2000),  wurde  im  Jahr  2000  als  delegierte  Rechtsvorschrift  erlassen  und  später 
mehrfach überarbeitet; die letzten drei Überarbeitungen im Jahr 2013 erfolgten anlässlich 
der Rechtssache C-81/12 vor dem Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union (EuGH).26 Bei der 
Verabschiedung  im  Jahr  2000  war  die  politische  Lage  angespannt.  Die  parallel 
stattfindenden  Arbeiten  an  den  beiden  europäischen  Gleichbehandlungsrichtlinien 
beeinflussten den Wortlaut des rumänischen Gesetzes, das in vielen Bereichen über den 
Besitzstand  der  Union  hinausgeht.  Fünfzehn  Jahre  nach  Verabschiedung  des 
Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes  ist  Diskriminierung  in  Rumänien  weiterhin  weit  verbreitet. 
Die  Roma-Minderheit  in  Rumänien,  für  die  keine  zuverlässigen  öffentlichen  Zahlen 
vorliegen,  die  jedoch  als  die  größte  in  Europa  gilt,  wird  beim  Zugang  zu  Beschäftigung, 
Gesundheitswesen,  Dienstleistungen  und  Gütern,  Wohnraum,  einschließlich  von 
Sozialwohnungen,  sowie  zur  Bildung  diskriminiert.  Die  rumänischen  Rechtsvorschriften 
zum  Wohnungswesen  enthalten  keinerlei  Bestimmungen  über  Roma,  was  zu  einer 
mittelbaren  Diskriminierung  führt.  Die  Mehrzahl  der  Fälle  bei  der  rumänischen 
Gleichbehandlungsstelle  –  dem  Nationalen  Rat  für  den  Kampf  gegen  Diskriminierung 
(NCCD) – betreffen Verletzungen der Menschenwürde. Die Wiederbelebung eines extrem 
nationalistischen  Diskurses, 
und 
Massenausschreitungen  gegen  Roma-Gemeinschaften  Anfang  der  1990er  Jahre  geprägt 
hatte, durchdringt den öffentlichen Raum, insbesondere bei Vorfällen im Nordwesten des 
Landes. Medienberichte über italienische, französische, britische oder deutsche Kritik am 
Umgang  mit  den  Roma  wird  selbst  von  Amtsträgern  zu  neuen  öffentlichen 
Diskriminierungen  gegen  die  Roma  genutzt.  Dieses  schrittweise  Abstumpfen  gegenüber 

von  Brandstiftung 

auch 

Fälle 

der 

die 

25   Nach der Volkszählung von 2011 setzt sich die Bevölkerung des Landes zusammen aus 88,9 % Rumänen, 

6,5 % Ungarn, 2,46 % Roma und weniger als 1 % Ukrainern, Deutschen, Russen, Türken, Tartaren, Serben, 
Kroaten, Juden, Armeniern und Bulgaren. Die Zahlen sind verfügbar unter 
http://www.edrc.ro/recensamant.jsp?language=0.  

26   Rumänien, Regierungsverordnung 137/2000 über die Prävention und Bestrafung jeder Form der 

Diskriminierung (Ordonanța de Guvern 137/2000 privind prevenirea și sancționarea tuturor 
formelor de discriminare), veröffentlicht in Monitorul Oficial al României Nr. 431 vom September 2000. Die 
jüngsten Änderungen: Rumänien, Gesetz 61/2013 zur Änderung der Regierungsverordnung 137/2000 über 
die Prävention und Bestrafung jeder Form der Diskriminierung, 21. März 2013, und Rumänien, 
Dringlichkeitsverordnung 19/2013 zur Änderung der Regierungsverordnung 137/2000 über die Prävention 
und Bestrafung jeder Form der Diskriminierung, 27. März 2013). 

22 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Rassismus führte im Jahr 2011 dazu, dass in Baia Mare eine fast 100 Meter lange und 1,8-
2 Meter hohe Mauer als „Sicherheitsmaßnahme“ errichtet wurde.27 

Obwohl  sie  durch  das  Antidiskriminierungsgesetz  ausdrücklich  geschützt  sind,  gehören 
sexuelle Minderheiten weiterhin zu den Gruppen, die am stärksten unter Druck stehen, sei 
es  durch  Gesetzentwürfe,  mit  denen  ihre  Rechte  eingeschränkt  werden,  sei  es  durch 
Übergriffe bei Veranstaltungen von NRO, die weder untersucht noch geahndet werden. Das 
neue  Zivilgesetzbuch,  das 
ist,  verbietet  ausdrücklich 
gleichgeschlechtliche  Partnerschaften  und  Ehen  und  verweigert  im  Ausland  rechtskräftig 
geschlossenen Partnerschaften und Ehen die Anerkennung in Rumänien (selbst zwischen 
Ausländern).  Transgender-Personen  genießen  keinen  Rechtsschutz,  weil  das  rumänische 
Recht keine klaren und vorhersehbaren Verfahren und Standards bietet.  

seit  2011 

in  Kraft 

Spezielle  Programme  und  positive  Maßnahmen  für  Menschen  mit  Behinderungen  oder 
Menschen mit HIV bzw. AIDS sind selten und decken bei weitem nicht alle Problemfelder 
ab. Rumänien hat das Übereinkommen über die Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderungen 
der  Vereinten  Nationen  zwar  bereits  im  September  2007  unterzeichnet,  jedoch  erst  im 
November  2010  ratifiziert.  Es  wurden  noch  keine  Gesetze  zur  Harmonisierung 
verabschiedet  und  die  offizielle  Übersetzung  weicht  vom  Text  des  Übereinkommens  ab. 
Das  rumänische  Recht  verwendet  immer  noch  den  Begriff  „Behinderte“  statt  „Menschen 
mit Behinderung“, wodurch der medizinische Aspekt betont wird.  

Die nationale Gleichbehandlungsstelle (NCCD) hat den Dialog und Konsultationen mit NRO 
und den Sozialpartnern angestoßen, steht aber selbst unter Druck, weil seine personellen 
und  finanziellen  Mittel  beschränkt  sind  und  der  Verwaltungsrat  aufgrund  des  geltenden 
Ernennungsverfahrens stark politisiert ist. 

2. Wichtigste Gesetze 

Die  rumänische  Verfassung  garantiert  in  Artikel 4.2  die  Gleichbehandlung  aller  Bürger, 
wobei  die  Staatsbürgerschaft  ohne  Diskriminierung  aufgrund  von  Rasse,  Nationalität, 
ethnischer  Zugehörigkeit,  Sprache,  Religion,  Geschlecht,  Überzeugung,  politischer 
Zugehörigkeit,  Eigentum  oder  sozialer  Herkunft  gewährt  wird.  Artikel 16  garantiert  die 
Gleichbehandlung  aller  Bürger  vor  dem  Gesetz  und  öffentlichen  Behörden  ohne 
Bevorzugung  oder  Diskriminierung.  Artikel  30 Absatz  7  verbietet  „Anstachelung  ...  zu 
nationalem,  rassistischem,  klassenbezogenem  oder  religiösem  Hass  und  Aufhetzung  zur 
Diskriminierung.“ Während der Debatte über eine Verfassungsreform im Jahr 2013 wurde 
vorgeschlagen,  die  Liste  der  Schutzgründe  über  die  in  Artikel 21  der  Charta  der 
Grundrechte  der  EU  genannten  Gründe  hinaus  zu  erweitern.  Der  Diskriminierungsgrund 
sexuelle  Ausrichtung  war  zunächst  enthalten,  wurde  dann  jedoch  vom  zuständigen 
parlamentarischen Ausschuss gestrichen. 

Rumänien hat alle wichtigen europäischen und internationalen Menschenrechtsabkommen 
unterzeichnet und gemäß der Verfassung müssen bei der Auslegung und Durchsetzung der 
in  der  Verfassung  verankerten  Rechte  der  Bürger  die  Allgemeine  Erklärung  der 
Menschenrechte  und  alle  internationalen  Pakte  und  sonstigen  Verträge  berücksichtigt 
werden,  die  Rumänien  unterzeichnet  hat.  Artikel 20  der  Verfassung  garantiert  bei 
Widersprüchen zwischen den Menschenrechtsabkommen, die Rumänien unterzeichnet hat, 
und dem nationalen Recht den Vorrang der internationalen Rechtsvorschriften, es sei denn, 
die Verfassung oder die nationalen Gesetze enthalten günstigere Bestimmungen.  

27   Der NCCD verhängte wegen des Baus der Mauer Sanktionen, seine Entscheidung wurde jedoch vom 

Berufungsgericht aufgehoben. 2013 bestätigte schließlich der Oberste Kassations- und Strafgerichtshof die 
Sanktionen, die der NCCD gegen den Bürgermeister von Baia Mare verhängt hatte. In einem eigenständigen 
Verfahren vor dem Amtsgericht Bukarest, in dem auf den Abriss der Mauer geklagt wurde, kam das Gericht 
zu dem Urteil, dass die Mauer rechtmäßig ist. Die Mauer steht immer noch. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
(GO  137/2000)  erlaubt  das 
Neben  dem  speziellen  Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 
Zivilgesetzbuch  Schadensersatzklagen  bei  Schäden  (einschließlich  von  Schäden  wegen 
einer Diskriminierung) und das Strafgesetzbuch enthält Bestimmungen über erschwerende 
Umstände,  wenn  eine  Straftat  aus  den  im  Antidiskriminierungsrecht  geschützten 
Diskriminierungsgründen begangen wurde.  

Das  neue  Strafgesetzbuch,  das  seit  Februar  2014  in  Kraft  ist,  bietet  Schutz  vor 
Anstachelung 
Beschimpfung  mit 
diskriminierender  Absicht  während  der  Ausübung  eines  öffentlichen  Amts.  Wie  die 
gesonderten Statistiken des Generalstaatsanwalts zeigen, sind diese Normen jedoch nur 
beschränkt durchsetzbar. 

zu  Diskriminierung,  Hassverbrechen 

und 

Die Neufassung des Arbeitsgesetzes aus dem Jahr 2011 enthält ein allgemeines Verbot von 
Diskriminierung  im  Bereich  der  Beschäftigung.  Das  Gesetz  über  Chancengleichheit 
zwischen  Frauen  und  Männern  wiederholt  einige  der  Bestimmungen  des 
Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes, sieht aber keine wirksamen Rechtsmittel oder Mechanismen 
zu  deren  Umsetzung  vor  –  de  facto  ist  die  nationale  Gleichbehandlungsstelle  für  alle 
Diskriminierungsgründe zuständig.  

2008  und  2009  wurde  das  Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 
vom  Rumänischen 
Verfassungsgericht  in  einer  Reihe  von  Fällen  überprüft  und  seine  Anwendung  wurde 
teilweise  eingeschränkt.  Das  Verfassungsgericht  schränkte  die  Gültigkeit  des 
Antidiskriminierungsrechts  für  die  Gesetzgebung  (Gesetze  und  Verordnungen)  ein  und 
erklärte  die  betreffende  Bestimmung  des  Gesetzes  für  verfassungswidrig,  weil  sie  nach 
Lesart  des  Verfassungsgerichts  Gerichten  oder  dem  NCCD  das  Recht  verleiht, 
diskriminierende Rechtsvorschriften aufzuheben. Doch sowohl 2008 als auch 2009 wurden 
Verfahren geführt, in denen die Verfassungsmäßigkeit des Mandats des NCCD angezweifelt 
wurde.  Jedes  Mal  wurde  die  außergerichtliche  Funktion  der  Stelle  bestätigt.  Das 
Antidiskriminierungsgesetz  wurde  mehrmals  überarbeitet,  wobei  die 
letzten  drei 
Änderungen  im  Jahr  2013  gewährleisten  sollten,  dass  die  Begriffe  des  Gesetzes  den 
europäischen Definitionen entsprechen. 

3. Wichtigste Grundsätze und Begriffe 

Das Antidiskriminierungsgesetz führt eine weite, umfassende Definition von unmittelbarer 
Diskriminierung  ein,  die  über  den  Inhalt  und  den  Anwendungsbereich  der  Richtlinien 
2000/43/EG  und  2000/78/EG  hinausgeht.28  Obwohl  die  Liste  der  geschützten 
Diskriminierungsgründe  sehr  großzügig  ist  und  mehr  als  die  fünf  Gründe  der  Richtlinien 
enthält,  ermöglicht  es  den  Gerichten  oder  dem  NCCD  durch  die  allgemeine  Wendung 
„irgendeinem anderen Kriterium“, das Gesetz auf Kategorien anzuwenden, die über reine 
Diskriminierung hinausgehen, und das Diskriminierungsverbot in einen breiter gefassten 
von 
verwandeln. 
Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatz 
Diskriminierungsgründen kann sich aber auch negativ auf die Durchsetzbarkeit auswirken.  

„Hyperinflation“ 

Diese 

zu 

28   Rumänien, das Antidiskriminierungsgesetz (GO 137/2000) verbietet „die Unterscheidung, Ausgrenzung, 
Beschränkung oder Bevorzugung aufgrund von Rasse, Nationalität, ethnischer Zugehörigkeit, Sprache, 
Religion, sozialem Status, Glaube, sexueller Ausrichtung, Alter, Behinderung, nicht ansteckender 
chronischer Erkrankung, HIV-Infektion, Zugehörigkeit zu einer benachteiligten Gruppe oder irgendeinem 
anderen Kriterium, die eine Einschränkung oder Verhinderung der gleichwertigen Anerkennung oder der 
Ausübung der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten im politischen, wirtschaftlichen, sozialen und kulturellen 
Bereich oder jedem anderen Bereich des öffentlichen Lebens bewirkt oder bezweckt.“ 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Seit  2006  enthält  das  Gesetz  eine  Definition  von  mittelbarer  Diskriminierung29  und 
Belästigung.30  

Belästigung wird auch im Gesetz für Chancengleichheit und im Strafgesetzbuch verboten, 
jedoch erfüllt keine der Definitionen vollständig die Vorgaben der Richtlinien. 

Viktimisierung wird definiert als Benachteiligungen, die als Reaktion auf Beschwerden beim 
NCCD  oder  auf  die  Einleitung  eines  Verfahrens  vor  Gericht  zur  Durchsetzung  des 
Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatzes und des Diskriminierungsverbots erfolgen. Anweisung zur 
Diskriminierung wird als „Befehl“ zur Diskriminierung definiert, was Raum für eine weitere 
Klärung  des  Begriffs  lässt.  Mehrfachdiskriminierung  wird  definiert  und  stellt  einen 
erschwerenden Umstand in Diskriminierungsfällen dar, diese Bestimmung wird jedoch in 
der Rechtsprechung des NCCD kaum umgesetzt, was darauf hindeutet, dass das Konzept 
dort nicht verstanden wird.  

2013  wurde  eine  Definition  von  wesentlichen  und  entscheidenden  beruflichen 
Anforderungen  in  das  Antidiskriminierungsgesetz  aufgenommen,  die  aber  noch  auf  ihre 
Auslegung vor Gericht wartet. Das Antidiskriminierungsgesetz kennt keine angemessenen 
Vorkehrungen,  enthält  aber  eine  Definition  des  Begriffs  „positive  Maßnahmen.“  In  den 
Rechtsvorschriften  über  die  Rechte  von  Menschen  mit  Behinderungen  werden 
angemessene Vorkehrungen als Möglichkeit für den Arbeitnehmer definiert, nicht als Pflicht 
des Arbeitgebers.31 Die allgemeinen politischen Empfehlungen Nr. 7 der ECRI wurden nicht 
in  rumänisches  Recht  umgesetzt,  obwohl  einige  Elemente  vom  NCCD  bei  seiner 
Rechtsprechung  berücksichtigt  wurden,  insbesondere  in  Bezug  auf  Segregation  im 
Bildungswesen,  Diskriminierung  durch  Assoziierung,  angekündigte  Absicht  zur 
Diskriminierung,  Anweisung  zur  Diskriminierung,  Aufhetzung  zur  Diskriminierung  und 
Unterstützung  bei  diskriminierenden  Handlungen.  Ein  Fall  aus  dem  Jahr  2011,  der  für 
landesweite  Schlagzeilen  sorgte,  machte  deutlich,  dass  das  Gesetz  kein  Verbot  von 
Wohnsegregation  enthält,  eine  Form  der  Diskriminierung,  von  der  Roma  stark  betroffen 
sind. Der NCCD verurteilte den Fall als Diskriminierung und die Gerichte bestätigten das 
Urteil.32 

4. Sachlicher Anwendungsbereich 

Der sachliche Anwendungsbereich des rumänischen Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes umfasst 
alle Bereiche, die durch die Richtlinien 2000/43/EG und 2000/78/EG geschützt sind. Das 
Gesetz  geht  aber  noch  darüber  hinaus  und  bietet  Rechtsschutz  in  Bezug  auf  die 
Freizügigkeit  und  das  Recht  auf  Menschenwürde.  Bei  der  Definition  von  Diskriminierung 
folgte  der  Gesetzgeber  einem  allgemeinen  Ansatz  und  weitete  den  Grundsatz  der 
Gleichbehandlung  und  das  Diskriminierungsverbot  auf  alle  Grundrechte  und 
Grundfreiheiten aus. Das Antidiskriminierungsgesetz (GO 137/2000) gilt für öffentliche und 
private Akteure gleichermaßen. 

Nach Urteilen, die das rumänische Verfassungsgericht 2008 fällte und 2009 bestätigte, sind 
die Bestimmungen des Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes nicht auf Diskriminierung infolge von 
diskriminierenden  Rechtsvorschriften  (Gesetzen  und  Verordnungen)  anwendbar  und  die 

29   Mittelbare Diskriminierung ist definiert als „dem Anschein nach neutrale Vorschriften, Kriterien oder 

Verfahren, die Personen aufgrund eines der geschützten Gründe benachteiligen, mit Ausnahme von Fällen, 
in denen diese Vorschriften, Kriterien oder Verfahren durch ein rechtmäßiges Ziel sachlich gerechtfertigt, 
und die Mittel zur Erreichung dieses Ziels angemessen und erforderlich sind.“ 

30   Belästigung ist definiert als „Verhaltensweisen aufgrund von Rasse, Nationalität, ethnischer Zugehörigkeit, 
Sprache, Religion, sozialem Status, Glauben, Geschlecht, sexueller Ausrichtung, Zugehörigkeit zu einer 
benachteiligten Gruppe, Alter, Behinderung, Status als Flüchtling oder Asylsuchender oder irgendeinem 
anderen Kriterium, mit denen ein von Einschüchterungen, Anfeindungen, Erniedrigungen, Entwürdigungen 
oder Beleidigungen gekennzeichnetes Umfeld geschaffen wird“. Belästigung ist durch das Gesetz verboten. 

31   Rumänien, Gesetz 448/2006 über Schutz und Förderung der Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderung (6. 

Dezember 2006). 

32   Rumänien, Oberster Kassations- und Strafgerichtshof, Rechtssache 1741/33/2011, Urteil 640/27.09.2013. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Gerichte und der NCCD sind nicht befugt, Rechtsnormen, die sie für diskriminierend halten, 
nicht  anzuwenden  oder  aufzuheben.  Zwar  können  die  Parteien  in  Gerichtsverfahren 
beantragen, die Verfassungsmäßigkeit von Normen durch das Verfassungsgericht prüfen 
zu lassen, diese Option steht aber bei Verfahren vor dem NCCD nicht zur Verfügung, weil 
die Stelle keinen Verfassungsrang besitzt. Die Ombudsstelle besitzt zwar ein Klagerecht, 
hat diese Befugnis aber bisher noch nie dazu genutzt, diskriminierende Rechtsvorschriften 
vor das Verfassungsgericht zu bringen.  

5. Rechtsdurchsetzung 

Das  Antidiskriminierungsgesetz  schafft  ein  duales  System  von  Rechtsmitteln:  Kläger 
können  eine  Beschwerde  beim  NCCD  in  Form  eines  Verwaltungsverfahrens  einreichen 
und/oder eine Zivilklage vor Gericht, bei der sie auf Schadensersatz klagen (für keines der 
Verfahren  werden  Gerichtsgebühren  erhoben).  Opfer  können  beide  Rechtsmittel 
gleichzeitig nutzen, was jedoch praktische Schwierigkeiten aufwirft und die sowieso schon 
knappen  Mittel  des  NCCD  weiter  strapaziert,  weil  die  Stelle  dann  als  Gutachter  im 
Zivilverfahren aussagen muss. Außerdem besteht die Gefahr, dass die beiden Stellen zu 
unterschiedlichen Urteilen gelangen. 

Einzelpersonen und juristische Personen mit einem rechtmäßigen Interesse, einschließlich 
von  Menschenrechtsorganisationen  und  Minderheitenverbänden,  können  innerhalb  eines 
Jahres  nach  der  mutmaßlichen  Diskriminierung  beim  NCCD  Beschwerde  einreichen.  Der 
NCCD  kann  auch  von  Amts  wegen  eigene  Untersuchungen  einleiten.  Der  NCCD  muss 
innerhalb von 90 Tagen den Fall untersuchen, die Parteien hören und entscheiden, ob ein 
Verstoß gegen das Diskriminierungsverbot vorliegt. Wenn der NCCD eine Diskriminierung 
feststellt,  kann  er  Ordnungsstrafen  verhängen  (Verwarnungen  oder  Geldbußen).  Gegen 
Entscheidungen  des  NCCD  kann  vor  den  Verwaltungsgerichten  Einspruch  eingelegt 
werden. Wenn das Opfer eine Einzelperson ist, liegt die Geldbuße nach einer Reform von 
2013  im  Bereich  von  250-7500  Euro  (1000-30.000 RON),  wenn  eine  Gruppe  oder 
Gemeinschaft  diskriminiert  wurde,  liegt  die  Geldbuße  im  Bereich  von  500-25.000  Euro 
(2000-100.000 RON).  

Der  NCCD  spricht  außerdem  häufig  Empfehlungen  aus,  die  nicht  mit  finanziellen  oder 
sonstigen Strafen  einhergehen, insbesondere in Fällen gegen  öffentliche Behörden, aber 
auch in Fällen, in denen die Verfahrensfristen nicht eingehalten wurden. Dabei beruft sich 
der NCCD auf die Verjährungsfristen gemäß den allgemeinen Regeln in Bezug auf leichte 
Straftaten.  Eine  Folge  dieser  Entscheidung  war  aber  auch,  dass  inzwischen  bezweifelt 
werden muss, ob die Rechtsmittel in Diskriminierungsfällen wirksam, verhältnismäßig und 
abschreckend sind. Durch die Überarbeitung des Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes von 2013 
sollte das Problem gelöst werden, indem für Sanktionen eine Verjährungsfrist von sechs 
Monaten  ab  der  Entscheidung  des  NCCD  eingeführt  wird,  die  die  umstrittene 
verwaltungsrechtliche  Verjährungsfrist  ersetzt.  Dieser  Aspekt  spielt  auch  in  der 
Rechtssache  C-81/12  vor  dem  Gerichtshof  der  Europäischen  Union  (EuGH)  eine  Rolle. 
Opfer, die aufgrund einer Diskriminierung auf Entschädigung klagen möchten, müssen dies 
vor einem Zivilgericht tun – dabei ist eine Entscheidung des NCCD keine Voraussetzung, 
kann aber beim Nachweis der Diskriminierung und bei der Bestimmung des Schadens eine 
wichtige Rolle spielen. Der NCCD wird in diesem Fall als Gutachter gehört. 

In  einem  Zivilverfahren  kann  der  Kläger  auf  Schadensersatz  und  Schmerzensgeld  sowie 
sonstige  Sanktionen  klagen  (z. B.  Entzug  oder  Sperre  der  Genehmigung  privater 
des 
Unternehmen 
Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes können die Gerichte öffentliche Behörden dazu verpflichten, 
juristischen  Personen,  die  durch  diskriminierende  Handlungen  wesentliche  Schäden 
verursachen  oder  wiederholt  gegen  das  gesetzliche  Diskriminierungsverbot  verstoßen 
haben, die Betriebsgenehmigung zu entziehen oder zu sperren. 

von  Dienstleistungen).  Nach  Artikel 27 

Erbringung 

zur 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Opfer von Diskriminierung können sich an eine Menschenrechtsorganisation wenden, die 
sie dann vor Gericht vertritt oder in eigenem Namen klagt. Die Opfer können sich gemäß 
den Verfahrensregeln des NCCD auch vertraulich an den NCCD wenden, um Meldungen in 
den Medien zu vermeiden. Auch vor Gericht kann ein Antrag auf Geheimhaltung gestellt 
werden,  wonach  der  Richter  entscheidet,  ob  das  Verfahren  unter  Ausschluss  der 
Öffentlichkeit stattfindet. Seit der Reform des Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes von 2006 sind 
in Diskriminierungsfällen ausdrücklich alle Arten von Beweis zugelassen, einschließlich von 
Audio-  und  Videoaufzeichnungen  und  statistischen  Daten.  Wie  die  Rechtsprechung  des 
NCCD zeigt, nutzt auch der NCCD statistische Daten als Beweise. Obwohl der NCCD und 
(vorwiegend) Roma-NRO früher häufiger Situationstests eingesetzt haben, wurden diese 
Verfahren in aktuellen Fällen nicht mehr verwendet. 

Seit  der  Überarbeitung  des  Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes  von  2013  gilt  die  umgekehrte 
Beweislast.33 Der NCCD legt die Bestimmungen zur Beweislast in einigen Fällen gemäß den 
Richtlinien aus, jedoch nicht durchgehend. In vielen Fällen lässt der NCCD die Beweislast 
auch beim Kläger.  

NRO  können  sich  entweder  im  Namen  oder  zur  Unterstützung  der  Opfer  von 
Diskriminierung  an  Verfahren  beteiligen.  In  diesen  Fällen  sind  die  Rechtsmittel  jedoch 
eingeschränkt,  weil  die  Gerichte  nur  bei  einer  persönlichen  Schädigung  einen 
Schadensersatz zusprechen. 

Es  gibt  keine  Übersicht  oder  Kontrolle  der  Sanktionen,  die  die  Gerichte 
in 
Diskriminierungsfällen verhängen. Die wenigen öffentlich zugänglichen Fälle deuten darauf 
hin, dass die Gerichte sich beim Schmerzensgeld auf einen Höchstwert von 10.000 Euro 
geeinigt haben, der in einigen wenigen Fällen erreicht wurde. Materielle Schäden müssen 
gemäß den üblichen zivilrechtlichen Regeln nachgewiesen werden. 

Obwohl  nicht  alle  Entscheidungen  der  Gerichte  und  des  NCCD  im  Internet  veröffentlicht 
werden und ihre Durchsetzung nicht angemessen kontrolliert wird, weist das Vorkommen 
von Wiederholungstätern darauf hin, dass die Rechtsmittel nicht wirksam, verhältnismäßig 
und abschreckend sind. 

6. Gleichbehandlungsstellen 

Die  nationale  Gleichbehandlungsstelle,  der  Nationale  Rat  für  den  Kampf  gegen 
Diskriminierung (NCCD) (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării) wurde bereits 
im Jahr 2000 mit dem Antidiskriminierungsgesetz ins Leben gerufen, nahm aber erst im 
Herbst 2002 ihre Arbeit auf. Seit 2007 hat der NCCD Regionalbüros eröffnet, von denen es 
derzeit zwei gibt.  

Der NCCD ist eine eigenständige öffentliche Behörde, die dem Parlament untersteht und 
deren  Unabhängigkeit  im  Antidiskriminierungsgesetz  garantiert  ist.  Die  Ernennung  der 
Mitglieder seines Lenkungsausschusses durch sechs relevante Parlamentsausschüsse sollte 
seine institutionelle Unabhängigkeit gewährleisten, hat sich aber in der Praxis als Hindernis 
erwiesen, weil der NCCD durch die Politisierung des Ernennungsverfahrens vom Sommer 
2009  bis  April  2010  praktisch  handlungsunfähig  war.  Die  Ernennungen  vom  April  2010 
wurden von NRO und unabhängigen Bewerbern kritisiert, weil rechtliche Vorgaben verletzt 
wurden  und  der  Prozess  politisiert  war.  Dies  beeinträchtigt  die  professionelle  Arbeit  des 
NCCD. Stimmen gegen diese Politisierung der Institutionen stammen auch aus dem NCCD 
selbst und sogar vom Vorsitzenden des Rates. Drei neue Ernennungen im Jahr 2012 riefen 

33   Nach dem neuen Wortlaut zur Beweislast muss „die betroffene Person Tatsachen vorlegen, die das Vorliegen 
einer unmittelbaren oder mittelbaren Diskriminierung vermuten lassen, und es obliegt dem Beklagten zu 
beweisen, dass keine Verletzung des Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatzes vorgelegen hat. Dem 
Lenkungsausschuss (den Gerichten) kann jede Art von Beweis vorgelegt werden, der nicht gegen die 
verfassungsmäßigen Grundrechte verstößt, einschließlich von Audio- und Videoaufzeichnungen und 
statistischen Daten.“ 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
gemischte  Reaktionen  hervor,  weil  zwar  zwei  politischen  Kandidaten  die  nötigen 
Erfahrungen  fehlten,  der  dritte  aber  ein  renommierter  Antidiskriminierungsexperte  ist, 
dessen  Amtszeit  dank  seines  Fachwissens  und  Engagements  und  trotz  mangelnder 
Parteizugehörigkeit verlängert wurde. 

Der  NCCD  ist  für  folgenden  Aufgaben  zuständig:  Unterstützung  der  Opfer  von 
Diskriminierung  durch  unabhängige  Rechtshilfe,  Bekämpfung  von  Diskriminierung  durch 
Aufklärungskampagnen,  Studien  und  Forschungsprojekte,  Erhebung  relevanter  Daten, 
unabhängige Befragungen und Berichte, Schlichtungen, Untersuchung und Sanktionierung 
von  Diskriminierungsfällen  und  Vorbereitung  von  Rechtsvorschriften,  die  die 
Harmonisierung  des  Rechts  mit  dem  Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatz  gewährleisten.  In  der 
Praxis  fungiert  der  NCCD  vorwiegend  als  außergerichtliche  Stelle,  die  untersucht,  ob 
bestimmte Handlungen oder Verfahren eine Diskriminierung darstellen und entsprechende 
Ordnungsstrafen (Verwarnungen oder Geldbußen) verhängt.  

Der Bekanntheitsgrad des NCCD ist in den letzten sechs Jahren exponentiell gestiegen. In 
dieser Zeit hat der Rat eine Reihe von Fällen behandelt, an denen führende rumänische 
Politiker beteiligt waren (der Präsident, der Premierminister, zwei ehemalige Außenminister 
und  ein  Mitglied  des  Europäischen  Parlaments)  sowie  andere  Fälle,  über  die  die  Medien 
ausführlich  berichteten  (z. B.  das  Urteil  über  religiöse  Symbole  in  staatlichen  Schulen, 
segregierte  Schulen  und  Urteile  gegen  mehrere  Sportclubs).  Außerdem  äußert  er  sich 
öffentlich  gegen  rassistisches  und  populistisches  Verhalten.  Die  Institution  nimmt  eine 
immer stärkere proaktive Rolle ein, ist an zahlreichen Projekten beteiligt und hat sich selbst 
als  ernstzunehmende  Stimme  im  Kampf  gegen  Diskriminierung  in  einem  sehr  sensiblen 
Umfeld etabliert.  

7. Wichtige Punkte 

a. 
Die vorgesehenen Sanktionen sind nicht abschreckend, verhältnismäßig und wirksam 
Die Praxis des NCCD, auf Diskriminierungsfälle nur mit Verwarnungen oder Empfehlungen 
zu  reagieren  und  keine  Geldbußen  zu  verhängen,  unterhöhlt  die  Wirksamkeit, 
Verhältnismäßigkeit  und  Abschreckung  der  Rechtsmittel.  Verwarnungen  sind  nicht  mit 
Geldbußen verbunden und es gibt keine Verfahren, mit denen sichergestellt und kontrolliert 
wird,  dass  die  Täter  die  Empfehlungen  umsetzen  und  keine  weiteren  Diskriminierungen 
begehen.  

b.  Weder  der  NCCD  noch  die  Gerichte  können  gegen  diskriminierende 

Rechtsvorschriften vorgehen 

Die  Einschränkung  des  Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes  durch  das  Rumänische 
Verfassungsgericht  in mehreren  Urteilen  aus  dem  Jahr  2008  und  2009,  die  sowohl  dem 
NCCD34,  als  auch  den  Zivilgerichten  die  Zuständigkeit  für  Diskriminierung  aufgrund  von 
Gesetzesvorschriften  35  abgesprochen  haben,  schuf  eine  Lücke  im  Rechtsschutz  gegen 
Diskriminierung. Der NCCD kann nicht einmal Verfassungsklage beim Verfassungsgericht 
einreichen, wenn er feststellt, dass Rechtsvorschriften gegen das Diskriminierungsverbot 
verstoßen. 

c. 
Keine 
der  Definitionen 
(Antidiskriminierungsgesetz,  Gesetz 

 Viele Begriffe sind noch nicht ausreichend geklärt und durch das Fallrecht ausgelegt 
einschlägigen  Normen 
für  Chancengleichheit  und  Strafgesetzbuch) 

von  Belästigung 

den 

in 

34   Rumänien, Verfassungsgericht (Curtea Constituţională), Urteil 997, 7. September 2008, in dem das Gericht 
zu dem Schluss kommt, dass Artikel 20 Absatz 3 des Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes (GO 137/2000), in dem 
die Zuständigkeit des NCCD für Diskriminierung infolge von Rechtsvorschriften festgelegt wird, gegen die 
Verfassung verstößt. 

35   Rumänien, Verfassungsgericht (Curtea Constituţională), Urteile 818, 819 und 820, 3. Juli 2008. Das 

Verfassungsgericht kam zu dem Urteil, das die Bestimmungen von Artikel 1 Absatz 2 Buchstabe e und 
Artikel 27 des Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes (GO 137/2000) verfassungswidrig sind, sofern sie so ausgelegt 
werden, dass Gerichte befugt sind, Rechtsvorschriften aufzuheben oder deren Anwendung abzulehnen, 
wenn das Gericht diese Vorschriften für diskriminierend hält. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
entsprechen  vollständig  der  Definition  von  Belästigung  in  Artikel  2 Absatz  3  der 
Gleichbehandlungsrichtlinien.  Das  rumänische  Antidiskriminierungsgesetz  verwendet  in 
Artikel 2 anstelle von „Anweisung“ den Begriff „Befehl“, was zu einer restriktiven Auslegung 
des Konzepts „Anweisung zur Diskriminierung“ führen und das Verbot einer Rangordnung 
von Diskriminierungsformen schwächen könnte. 

Der  Begriff  der  „angemessenen  Vorkehrungen“  für  Menschen  mit  Behinderung  ist  im 
rumänischen  Antidiskriminierungsgesetz  nicht  enthalten  und  wird  derzeit  mit  einem 
speziellen  Gesetz  zur  Förderung  und  zum  Schutz  der  Rechte  von  Menschen  mit 
Behinderungen eingeführt, das jedoch keine Sanktionen vorsieht.  

 Institutionelle Beschränkungen der nationalen Gleichbehandlungsstelle 

d. 
Obwohl dies im Antidiskriminierungsgesetz vorgesehen ist, hat der NCCD bisher noch keine 
Mechanismen  entwickelt,  um  Verstöße  gegen  das  Gesetz  und  die  Durchsetzung  seiner 
Urteile zu überwachen. Daher lässt sich nur schwer beurteilen, ob seine Arbeit effizient und 
die verhängten Sanktionen wirksam, verhältnismäßig und abschreckend sind. 

Aufgrund einer politischen Krise im Parlament blieben vom Sommer 2009 bis April 2010 
Stellen im Lenkungsausschuss des NCCD unbesetzt, was eine institutionelle Lähmung des 
Rates verursachte. Die Ernennung von sechs neuen Mitgliedern im April 2010 wurde von 
Protesten  mehrerer  NRO  begleitet,  weil  einige  der  Mitglieder  nicht  die  geforderten 
juristischen  Qualifikationen  aufwiesen.  Dies  zeigt,  dass  das  Ernennungsverfahren  durch 
das  Parlament,  das  eigentlich  dazu  gedacht  war,  die  Unabhängigkeit  des  Rates  zu 
gewährleisten,  inzwischen  seine  Arbeit  behindert.  Der  Trend  zur  Politisierung  des  Rates 
setzte sich mit zwei erneuten politischen Ernennungen im Jahr 2012 fort, wobei immerhin 
ein unabhängiger Experte in seinem Amt bestätigt wurde. Auch das NCCD selbst kritisiert 
inzwischen  die  zunehmende  Politisierung.  Die  Politisierung  des  Lenkungsausschusses 
macht  sich  in  mehreren  Bereichen  bemerkbar:  kontroverse  Urteile  in  Fällen,  an  denen 
Politiker beteiligt sind, Aufgabe wirksamer Sanktionen zugunsten von Empfehlungen ohne 
Rechtswirkung, Qualität der juristischen Argumentation, Anzahl der Urteile des NCCD, die 
von Berufungsgerichten bestätigt werden. 

Der  Haushalt  des  NCCD  wird  seit  2009  laufend  gekürzt,  damals  sogar  um  ganze  30 %. 
Seitdem wurde der Haushalt mehrmals um weitere 10 % gesenkt. Nach Angaben des NCCD 
konnten aufgrund fehlender Mittel und des allgemeinen Einstellungsstopps für Behörden, 
der  im  Rahmen  eines  Reformpakets  in  Reaktion  auf  die  Finanzkrise  beschlossen  wurde, 
keine neuen Mitarbeiter eingestellt werden. Auch einzelne Maßnahmen (z. B. Studien und 
Aufklärungskampagnen)  konnten  nicht  durchgeführt  werden,  weil  Mittel  aufgrund  der 
komplizierten Antragsverfahren nicht oder verspätet zur Verfügung gestellt wurden. 

Fehlen von Daten zum Stand der Gleichstellung 

e. 
Eine  falsche  Auslegung  der  Datenschutzvorschriften  hat  dazu  geführt,  dass  keine  Daten 
über den Stand der Gleichstellung vorliegen, auf deren Grundlage politische Maßnahmen 
entwickelt  werden  können,  die  die  Bedürfnisse  besonders  benachteiligter  Gruppen 
berücksichtigen. Das Fehlen von Daten verhindert außerdem eine wirksame Kontrolle von 
bestehenden  Maßnahmen  und  erschwert  den  Nachweis  von  Diskriminierung  vor  Gericht 
oder vor dem NCCD.  

Diskriminierungsgründe 

Trend zur Beweislast des Klägers bei Verletzungen der Menschenwürde 

f. 
Das  rumänische  Antidiskriminierungsrecht  enthält  eine  nicht  abgeschlossene  Liste 
des 
geschützter 
Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes  geht  über  denjenigen  der  Richtlinien  hinaus.  Die  Tatsache, 
dass das rumänische Recht über die Mindestanforderung der Richtlinien hinausgeht und, 
was besonders wichtig ist, das „Recht auf Menschenwürde“ betont, erhöht die Wirksamkeit 
der  Antidiskriminierungsnormen,  die  Schlagkraft  des  NCCD  und  die  Bekanntheit  der 
Bestimmungen  des  Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes  in  der  Öffentlichkeit.  Das  „Recht  auf 
Menschenwürde“ wurde in Fällen geltend gemacht, in denen die rechtlichen Bestimmungen 

Geltungsbereich 

und 

der 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
für eine Verurteilung nicht ausreichen, zum Beispiel bei der Klage gegen die Mauer in Baia 
Mare, die die Roma-Gemeinschaft umschließt.36 Leider haben das NCCD und die Gerichte 
bei  Klagen  wegen  einer  Verletzung  der  Menschenwürde  die  beunruhigende  Praxis 
entwickelt, von den Klägern Beweise dafür zu fordern, dass mit der Handlung tatsächlich 
eine Diskriminierung bezweckt wurde. 

36   NCCD Urteil Nr. 439 vom 15.11.2011 in der Rechtssache 4A/2011 NCCD gegen Cherecheş. 

30 

 
                                                 
INTRODUCTION 

The national legal system 

The Romanian Constitution provides for equality and non-discrimination in broad terms as 
general principles applicable to all citizens, irrespective of “race, nationality, ethnic origin, 
language,  religion,  sex,  opinion,  political  adherence,  property  or  social  origin.”37  These 
provisions are implemented in practice by specific anti-discrimination legislation adopted 
in  August  2000  through  delegated  legislation,  Governmental  Ordinance  137/2000  -
hereafter  referred  to  as  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  (GO  137/2000).38  Governmental 
Ordinance  137/2000  was  amended  subsequently  in  2002,  2003,  2004,  2006  and  three 
times  in  2013  to  enhance  transposition  of  Directive  2000/43/EC  and  Directive 
2000/78/EC.39  The  Anti-discrimination  Law  was  amended  three  times  in  2013  and 
significantly  improved  in  regards  of  the  definition  of  the  burden  of  proof,  the  general 
occupational  requirements,  the  statutory  limitations  and  the  remedies  provided.40  There 
have been no further amendments since then. The Anti-discrimination Law (GO 137/2000) 
introduces  a  mixed  system  of  remedies,  both  civil  and  administrative  (minor  offences), 
which can be pursued separately or simultaneously. 

(NCCD) 

In order to comply with the requirement to have a  specialised equality body at national 
level, the Anti-discrimination Law provides for  the establishment of the  National Council 
(Consiliul  Naţional  pentru  Combaterea 
for  Combating  Discrimination 
Discriminării).41  The  national  equality  body  has  a  mandate  to  prevent  discrimination 
through awareness raising and information and education campaigns, to mediate between 
the  parties,  to  provide  legal  assistance  to  victims  of  discrimination,  to  investigate  and 
sanction  discrimination,  including  initiating  ex  officio  cases,  to  monitor  discrimination 
cases, as well as to propose legislative bills and public policies to ensure harmonisation of 
legal provisions with the equality principle. The Romanian national equality body features 
elements of both a promotional body and a tribunal-type body. 

37   See Section 1 a) Constitutional provisions on protection against discrimination and the promotion of 

equality. 

38   Ordinance 137/2000 was adopted by the Government based on a constitutional procedure which allows the 
Parliament to delegate limited legislative powers to the Government during the parliamentary vacation in 
accordance with Art. 114 and Art. 107 (1) and (3) of the Constitution. The ordinances (statutory orders) 
must be submitted to the Parliament for approval, though in the interval between their adoption by the 
Government and the moment of their adoption (or rejection, or amendment) by the Parliament, they are 
binding and generate legal consequences.  

39   Romania, Governmental Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of 
discrimination (Ordonanța de Guvern 137/2000 privind prevenirea și sancționarea tuturor formelor de 
discriminare), 30 August 2000 was published in Monitorul Oficial al României No. 431 of September 2000. 
See also: Romania, Law 48/2002 concerning the adoption of Government Ordinance 137/2000 regarding 
the prevention and the punishment of all forms of discrimination, 31 January 2002; see also Romania, 
Government Ordinance 77/2003 for the amendment of the Government Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the 
prevention and the punishment of all forms of discrimination, 30 August 2003; see also Romania, Law 
27/2004 concerning the adoption of the Government Ordinance 77/2003 for the amendment of the 
Government Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of 
discrimination, 11 April 2004. See also: Romania, Law 324/2006 for the amendment of the Government 
Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of discrimination, 20 July 
2006; Romania, Law 61/2013 for the amendment of the Government Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the 
prevention and the punishment of all forms of discrimination, 21 March 2013; and Romania, Emergency 
Ordinance 19/2013 for the amendment of the Government Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention 
and the punishment of all forms of discrimination, 27 March 2013. 

40   Romania, Law 61/2013 for the amendment of the Government Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the 

prevention and the punishment of all forms of discrimination, 21 March 2013; Romania, Emergency 
Ordinance 19/2013 for the amendment of the Government Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention 
and the punishment of all forms of discrimination, 27 March 2013; Romania, Law 189/2013 for the 
ratification of Emergency Ordinance 19/2013 for the amendment of the Government Ordinance 137/2000 
regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of discrimination. 25 June 2013. 

41   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (NCCD) (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării). The official website of the institution is available at: http://www.cncd.org.ro. All hyperlinks 
were last visited on 10 April 2015. 

31 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Alternatively, the Anti-discrimination Law (GO 137/2000) can be enforced by civil courts if 
the  complainant  seeks  only  civil  remedies  under  general  torts  procedures.  A  decision  of 
the NCCD is not required in such cases but might help in making a claim for damages under 
general torts provisions. The courts have an obligation to communicate with the NCCD in 
discrimination  cases.  Civil  complaints  on  the  basis  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  are 
exempt from court fees, and the locus standi and burden of proof provisions are prescribed 
by the anti-discrimination legislation. 

In  2013,  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  was  amended  three  times.  The  first  of  these 
amendments,  on  21  March  2013,  clarified  the  selection  procedure  for  members  of  the 
Steering Board of the NCCD and introduced new  wording for the burden of proof before 
the NCCD and the courts.42 The second, on 27 March, introduced more significant changes, 
including  a  definition  of  genuine  occupational  requirements;  the  repeal  of  provisions 
allowing for exemptions from the prohibition of direct discrimination in access to goods and 
services and housing; a significant increase in the quantum of fines; and clarification as to 
specific  statutory  limitations,  including  a  statutory  limitation  term  (prescription)  of  six 
months  for  applying  a  sanction,  calculated  from  the  date  when  the  NCCD  decision  was 
issued.43  Thirdly,  ratification  of  the  emergency  ordinance  on  25  June,  led  to  further 
clarification on potential remedy, Article 26 of the Anti-discrimination Law introduced the 
option for the NCCD or for the court to oblige the perpetrator to publish a summary of the 
decision in the mass media.44 

The grounds of unlawful discrimination as well as the material scope of the protection of 
the Romanian Anti-discrimination Law go beyond the requirements of the directives. The 
list of protected grounds is an open list modelled after Article 14 of the ECHR. Also,  the 
prohibition of discrimination  on all grounds applies to employment as well as education, 
access to services and goods, including health services or public services, housing and a 
distinct feature, the right to dignity, often used as a catch all concept. However, the scope 
of the application of the Anti-discrimination Law was substantially diminished after 2008, 
following  a  series  of  decisions  of  the  Romanian  Constitutional  Court  (RCC)  (Curtea 
Constituţională) which limited both the mandate of the NCCD,45 and of the civil courts in 
relation  to  cases  of  discrimination  generated  by  legislative  provisions.46  Following  these 
RCC  decisions,  the  NCCD  refrained  from  issuing  decisions  in  cases  of  potential 
discrimination  triggered  by  legislative  provisions,  invoking  its  lack  of  competence. 

42   Romania, Law 61/2013 for the amendment of the Government Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the 

prevention and the punishment of all forms of discrimination, 21 March 2013. 

43   Romania, Emergency Ordinance 19/2013 for the amendment of the Government Ordinance 137/2000 

regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of discrimination, 27 March 2013. 

44   Romania, Law 189/2013 for the ratification of Emergency Ordinance 19/2013 for the amendment of the 

Government Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of 
discrimination, 25 June 2013. 

45   Romania, Constitutional Court (Curtea Constituţională), Decision 997 of 7 October 2008, concluding that the 

interpretation of Art. 20 (3) of the Anti-discrimination Law, defining the mandate of the NCCD in relation to 
identifying and sanctioning discrimination triggered by legislative provisions, is unconstitutional. All 
decisions of the Constitutional Court are available for research by decision number on the search engine of 
the Court at http://www.ccr.ro/ccrSearch/MainSearch/SearchForm.aspx. 

46   Romania, Constitutional Court (Curtea Constituţională), Decisions 818, 819 and 820 of 3 July 2008. In these 
three decisions, the Constitutional Court concluded that the dispositions of Art. 1(2) e) and of Art. 27 of the 
Anti-discrimination Law are unconstitutional, to the extent that they are understood as implying that the 
courts of law have the authority to nullify or to refuse the application of legal norms when considering that 
such norms are discriminatory. Based on the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the 
Constitutional Court emphasised the constitutionality of the Anti-discrimination Law but asserted that the 
enforcement of the Law by some courts is unconstitutional, due to the fact that during its application, some 
courts decided to quash particular legal provisions deemed as discriminatory and replaced them with other 
norms, thus ‘creating legal norms or substituting them with other norms of their choice.’ All decisions of the 
Constitutional Court are available for research by decision number on the search engine of the Court at 
http://www.ccr.ro/ccrSearch/MainSearch/SearchForm.aspx. 

32 

 
 
 
                                                 
However, the courts started to issue decisions obliging the NCCD to assess such cases and 
to find whether discrimination took place or not.47 This practice is not uniform so far. 

In  2008,  the  Romanian  Constitutional  Court  (RCC)  seized  the  opportunity  to  clarify  the 
legal  status  of  the  NCCD  as  a  tribunal-type  equality  authority  in  a  case  challenging  the 
constitutionality  of  Articles  16-25  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Law,  the  articles  which 
establish the mandate of the NCCD. The RCC affirmed that ‘the NCCD is an administrative 
agency with jurisdictional mandate, which enjoys the independence  required  in order to 
carry  out  administrative-jurisdictional  activities  and  complies  with  the  constitutional 
provisions from Art. 124 of the Constitution on administration of justice and Art. 126 (5) 
prohibiting the establishment of extraordinary courts of law.’48 In a similar case in 2009, 
the  RCC  reaffirmed  the  role  of  the  national  equality  body  as  an  autonomous  specialist 
public administrative body with a mandate to combat discrimination. The decision of the 
RCC clearly sets  out the role of the NCCD as  an administrative body  which is granted a 
mandate  to  interpret  and  apply  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  (GO  137/2000),  and  which 
enjoys the independence entailed by an administrative-jurisdictional activity.49  

In 2013, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had the opportunity to respond 
to a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 of the TFEU in C-81/12 ACCEPT v. 
Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării (NCCD), clarifying the understanding of 
the burden of proof in the context of prohibition of discrimination on the ground of sexual 
orientation in relation to public statements made by a person presenting himself and being 
perceived  by  the  general  public  as  playing  a  leading  role  in  a  professional  football  club 
ruling out recruitment of a footballer presented as being homosexual. The judgment also 
provided  the  opportunity  to  discuss  the  issue  of  the  effectiveness,  proportionality  and 
dissuasiveness  of  sanctions  in  cases  of  discrimination  and  the  enforcement  of  statutory 
limitations specific to the general minor offences regime.50 In spite of the clear ruling of 
the  CJEU,  the  Bucharest  Court  of  Appeal ignored  the  guidance  provided  in  C-81/12  and 
rejected the appeal of ACCEPT, deciding to uphold the decision of the NCCD.51 The decision 
was  challenged  by  ACCEPT  before  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice,  which  also 
upheld the NCCD decision in a final decision issued on 29 May 2015. The reasoning of the 
court decision has not yet been communicated to the parties.  

47   For example: Romania, High Court of Justice and Cassation (Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție) Decision 

5060/2013 of 18 April 2013, available at: http://legeaz.net/spete-contencios-inalta-curte-iccj-2013/decizia-
5060-2013.  

48   Romania, Constitutional Court (Curtea Constituţională), Decision 1096, 15 October.2008. The Court 

maintained the constitutionality of Arts. 16-25 of the Anti-discrimination Law regarding the quasi-judicial 
nature of the national equality body. All decisions of the Constitutional Court are available for research by 
decision number on the search engine of the Court at  
http://www.ccr.ro/ccrSearch/MainSearch/SearchForm.aspx. 

49   Romania, Constitutional Court (Curtea Constituţională), Decision 444, 31 March 2009. The complainant 

based his complaint on Art. 20 (1) and (2) on international treaties and human rights, Art. 75 (1), (4) and 
(5) on the legislative procedures in adopting legislation, Art. 117 3) on establishment of autonomous 
administrative authorities, Art. 140 (1) on the Court of Audit, and Art. 126 (5) on the prohibition of 
establishing extraordinary courts of law and the conditions for establishing specialised courts, maintaining 
that the national equality body is an extraordinary court established by means of delegated legislation and 
that the fact that the Ministry of Finances issues an advisory opinion on the budget of the NCCD infringes 
the independence of this institution as a prerequisite for a quasi-judicial body. The Constitutional Court 
found that the complaint against Art. 2 is not a constitutional challenge but merely a complaint as to the 
interpretation of the law; that the challenge against Art. 16 is ill-founded and the complaint against Art. 
20 (8), (9) and (10) is also ill-founded. Consequently, the Constitutional Court rejected the objection as to 
the constitutionality of the provisions of the Anti-discrimination Law regarding the quasi-judicial mandate of 
the national equality body. 

50   Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), C-81/12, ACCEPT v. Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării, 25 April 2013, request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Curtea de Apel 
Bucureşti (Romania), judgment of 25.04.2013 available at:  
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=fr&num=C-81/12.  

51   Romania, Court of Appeal Bucharest (Curtea de Apel Bucureşti), file 12562/2/2010, civil sentence 4180, 23 
December 2013. The Court of Appeal rejected the arguments of the complainant that the conflict should be 
defined as discrimination in employment and defined the exclusionary statements of Mr Becali as an 
exercise of free speech. 

33 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
The  Anti-discrimination  Law  is  enforceable  nationwide  and  is  complemented  by  relevant 
provisions found in ground-specific legislation, such as legislation regarding the rights of 
persons with disabilities (defined by Romanian legislation as ‘persons with handicap’)52 or 
in  legislation  regulating  particular  areas  such  as  the  Criminal  Code,53  and  the  Labour 
Code.54  In  cases  where  there  are  conflicting  provisions  in  different  relevant  pieces  of 
legislation, the Anti-discrimination Law would prevail as lex specialis. 

Romania  has  signed  and  ratified  most  relevant  international  human  rights  documents. 
Though  the  UN  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  was  ratified,  the 
special  legislation  has  not  yet  been  harmonised  and  the  official  Romanian  translation 
includes  major  errors  on  key  concepts  such  as  ‘legal  capacity’,  which  was  translated  as 
‘legal assistance’. 

List of main legislation transposing and implementing the directives 

Romania/  Ordonanța  de  Guvern  137/2000 privind  prevenirea  și  sancționarea  tuturor 
formelor de discriminare, Governmental Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and 
the punishment of all forms of discrimination 
Potential abbreviation: GO 137/2000, Anti-discrimination Law 
Date of adoption: 31 August 2000 
Date of entry into force: published in Monitorul Oficial al României No. 431 of September 
2000 
Date of latest amendments: 27 March 2013 
Grounds covered: race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, social status, beliefs, 
gender,  sexual  orientation,  age,  handicap,  non-contagious  chronic  disease,  HIV  positive 
status, belonging to a disadvantaged group or any other criterion.55 
Material scope covered: the various aspects of discrimination in employment relationships 
without differentiating between the different types of actors (public or private, civilian or 
military, secular or religious),56 access to public services, administrative and legal services, 
access  to  health  services,57  access  to  education,58  freedom  of  movement,  housing,59  as 
well as protection of the right to dignity.60 

52   Romania, Law 448/2006 on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Persons with a Handicap, 06 

December 2006. English translation available at:  
http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/LEGE%20448%20engleza.pdf.  

53   Romania, Criminal Code, Law 278/2006, 4 July 2006. 
54   Romania, Labour Code, 24 January 2003. 
55   Romania, Governmental Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of 
discrimination (Ordonanța de Guvern 137/2000 privind prevenirea și sancționarea tuturor formelor de 
discriminare)30 August 2000, Art. 2. 

56   Romania, Governmental Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of 
discrimination (Ordonanța de Guvern 137/2000 privind prevenirea și sancționarea tuturor formelor de 
discriminare), 30 August 2000, Arts. 5-8.  

57   Romania, Governmental Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of 
discrimination (Ordonanța de Guvern 137/2000 privind prevenirea și sancționarea tuturor formelor de 
discriminare), 30 August 2000, Art. 10. 

58   Romania, Governmental Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of 
discrimination (Ordonanța de Guvern 137/2000 privind prevenirea și sancționarea tuturor formelor de 
discriminare), 30 August 2000, Art. 11.  

59   Romania, Governmental Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of 
discrimination (Ordonanța de Guvern 137/2000 privind prevenirea și sancționarea tuturor formelor de 
discriminare), 30 August 2000, Arts. 12-14.  

60   Romania, Governmental Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of 
discrimination (Ordonanța de Guvern 137/2000 privind prevenirea și sancționarea tuturor formelor de 
discriminare), 30 August 2000, Art. 15. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
1 

GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK  

Constitutional provisions on protection against discrimination and the promotion 
of equality  

The Romanian Constitution includes the following articles dealing with non-discrimination: 
Articles 1 (3), 4 (2), 6, 16 and 30 (7):61  

‘Article 1 (3): ‘Romania is a democratic and social state, governed by the rule of law, 
in which human dignity, the citizens' rights and freedoms, the free development of 
human personality, justice and political pluralism represent supreme values, in the 
spirit  of  the  democratic  traditions  of  the  Romanian  people  and  the  ideals  of  the 
Revolution of December 1989, and shall be guaranteed.’ 
Article 4 ‘(1) The State foundation is laid on the unity of the Romanian people and 
the solidarity of its citizens. (2) Romania is the common and indivisible homeland of 
all  its  citizens,  without  any  discrimination  on  account  of  race,  nationality,  ethnic 
origin, language, religion, sex, opinion, political adherence, property or social origin.’  
Article 6 ‘(1) The State recognizes and guarantees the right of persons belonging to 
national minorities to the preservation, development and expression of their ethnic, 
cultural, linguistic and religious identity. (2) The protection measures taken by the 
Romanian State for the preservation, development and expression of identity of the 
persons belonging to national minorities shall conform to the principles of  equality 
and non-discrimination in relation to the other Romanian citizens.’ 
Article 16 ‘(1) Citizens are equal before the law and public authorities, without any 
privilege or discrimination. (2) No one is above the law. (3) Access to public, civil, or 
military positions or dignities may be granted, according to the law, to persons whose 
citizenship is Romanian and whose domicile is in Romania. The Romanian State shall 
guarantee  equal  opportunities  for  men  and  women  to  occupy  such  positions  and 
dignities. (4) After Romania's accession to the European Union, the Union's citizens 
who comply with the requirements of the organic law have the right to elect and be 
elected to the local public administration bodies.’  
Article 30 (7) ‘Any defamation of the country and the nation, any instigation to a war 
of  aggression,  to  national,  racial,  class  or  religious  hatred,  any  incitement  to 
discrimination … shall be prohibited by law.’62 

The text of the Constitution does not explicitly provide for protection against discrimination 
on  grounds  of  disability,  age  or  sexual  orientation,  as  stated  in  Directive  2000/78/EC; 
however,  it  mentions  protection  against  discrimination  on  the  additional  grounds  of 
language, opinion, political adherence, property and social origin. None of these categories 
is further defined by constitutional provisions or by implementing legislation. 

These  provisions  apply  to  all  areas  covered  by  the  directives.  Their  material  scope  is 
broader than those of the directives. 

The anti-discrimination provisions of the Constitution are not directly applicable. 

The  equality  clauses  in  the  Constitution  cannot  be  enforced  against  private  actors  (as 
opposed to the State). 

61  The Constitution of Romania of 1991 was amended by Law 429/2003 on the revision of the Constitution of 
Romania, 29 October 2003, available at http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?id=371 . Also relevant is 
Article 20 on the priority order of international treaties and national law: “(1) Constitutional provisions 
concerning the citizen's rights and liberties shall be interpreted and enforced in conformity with the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with the covenants and other treaties Romania is a party to. 
(2) Where any inconsistencies exist between the covenants and treaties on the fundamental human rights 
Romania is a party to, and the national laws, the international regulations shall take precedence, unless the 
Constitution or national laws comprise more favourable provisions.” 

62   Romania, Constitution of Romania of 1991, amended by the Law 429/2003 on the revision of the 

Constitution of Romania, 29 October 2003, available at http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?id=371. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2  THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION  

2.1  Grounds of unlawful discrimination explicitly covered  

The  following  grounds  of  discrimination  are  explicitly  prohibited  in  national  law:  ‘race, 
nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, social status, beliefs, sex, sexual orientation, 
age,  handicap,  non-contagious  chronic  disease,  HIV-positive  status,  belonging  to  a 
disadvantaged group or any other criterion.’63 

The  Romanian  Anti-discrimination  Law  includes  all  grounds  listed  by  the  directives  and 
extends to an even more inclusive approach as it also mentions other protected grounds 
such as ‘social status,’ ‘belonging to a disadvantaged group’ or ‘any other criterion’. The 
catch-all phrase ‘any  other criterion’, which turns the anti-discrimination principle into a 
broad equality principle, has in particular proved to be the most challenging in cases where 
discrimination was not based  on any of the criteria  specified in the law.  In practice, the 
largest number of petitions is filed on ‘other grounds’ such as socio-professional category 
or other ad hoc categories. 

2.1.1  Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the directives 

Romanian  legislation  and  case  law  do  not  provide  definitions  of  any  of  the  grounds  of 
discrimination  covered  by  the  directives.  In  a  2012  decision,  the  NCCD  discussed  the 
meanings  of  the  two  concepts  ‘handicap’  and  ‘disability’  used  in  Romanian  legislation, 
mentioning its  option  in  favour  of  using  the  term  ‘disability  in  an inclusive  manner’  and 
clarifying  that  ‘to  the  extent  that  an  illness  is  not  a  non-contagious  chronic  disease 
(meaning a protected criterion), it becomes a disability depending on the duration, nature 
or severity of the disease.’64 This approach might be interpreted as being in line with the 
definition provided subsequently by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in 
Joined Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11 Skouboe Werge and Ring. 

Article 4 of the Anti-discrimination Law defines ‘disadvantaged group’ as ‘the category of 
persons that is either placed in a position of inequality as opposed to the majority of citizens 
due to personal (identity) differences or is faced with rejection and marginalisation’. Prior 
to  the  2006  amendment,  the  text  included  as  exemplification  ‘non-contagious  chronic 
disease, HIV infection or the status of refugee or asylum-seeker’ but this exemplifying list 
was  deleted  by  the  Parliament  in  2006  during subsequent  rounds  of  amendments,  thus 
leaving  interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  the  concept  of  ‘disadvantaged  group’  to  the 
national equality body (NCCD) or to the courts. Currently, ‘disadvantaged group’ is used 
to cover all these categories. 

2.1.2  Multiple discrimination 

In Romania, prohibition of multiple discrimination is included in the Anti-Discrimination Law 
as  an  aggravating  circumstance  in  cases  of  discrimination  and  sanctioned  as  a  minor 
offence.  If  any  of  the  elements  of  a  case  of  multiple  discrimination  is  covered  by  the 
provisions  of  the  Criminal  Code,  the  case  will,  however,  be  tried  as  a  criminal  offence. 
Article 2 (6) of the Anti-discrimination Law reads as follows: 

63   Romania, Governmental Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of 
discrimination (Ordonanța de Guvern 137/2000 privind prevenirea și sancționarea tuturor formelor de 
discriminare), 30 August 2000, Art. 2(1). 

64   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 
Discriminării), Decision 509, file no. 433/2012, FEDRA v. SC SECOM SRL, 26 November 2012. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
‘Any  distinction,  exclusion,  restriction  or  preference  based  on  two  or  more  of  the 
criteria  foreseen  in  para.  1  shall  constitute  an  aggravating  circumstance  in 
establishing the contraventional responsibility, unless one or more of its components 
is not subject to criminal law.’65 

Romanian data on cases of multiple discrimination are contradictory and their correctness 
cannot be verified, as there is no public access to the  databases of the NCCD or courts. 
The NCCD reported sanctioning multiple discrimination falling under the scope of Directive 
2000/43/EC in seven cases in 2002 and in two cases in 2004 but no cases were reported 
subsequently.66 However, in a 2011 response to a  public information request, the NCCD 
reported 12 cases in 2003,  one case in 2004, 18 cases in 2005,  four cases in 2006,  six 
cases in 2007, eight cases in 2008, one case in 2009, four cases in 2010 and one case in 
2011. Based on the cases made publicly available so far, it seems that most of the multiple 
discrimination cases include gender as one of the grounds. 

In a case against the President of Romania, NCCD Decision 92 of 23 May 2007, in which 
the complainants sought a harsher sanction on grounds of the aggravating circumstance 
of multiple discrimination (the expressions used by Traian Băsescu in relation to a female 
journalist were ‘birdie’, a pejorative with sexual connotations, and ‘filthy Gypsy’), the NCCD 
did not consider that gender discrimination occurred and did not assess the case from the 
perspective of multiple discrimination. 

2.1.3  Assumed and associated discrimination 

a)  Discrimination by assumption 

In  Romania,  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  does  not  prohibit  discrimination  based  on 
perception  or  assumption  of  what  a  person  is,  although  the  case  law  developed  by  the 
NCCD  proves  that  discrimination  by  assumption  or  association  is  sanctioned.  The  NCCD 
discussed the concept particularly in cases of discrimination on grounds of association with 
a  particular  group  or  assumption  of  belonging  to  a  protected  group  (mostly  in  cases 
involving sexual orientation) but did not develop this in its reasoning.67 It is still up to the 
courts to decide if a prohibition of assumed discrimination can be inferred from the general 
definition of direct discrimination, as suggested by the NCCD. 

b)  Discrimination by association 

In  Romania,  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  does  not  prohibit  discrimination  based  on 
association  with  persons  with  particular  characteristics,  though  the  definition  of 
discrimination provided by Article 2 is broad/open enough to allow for enforcement in line 
with the CJEU judgment in Coleman v Attridge Law and Steve Law.68 However, the practice 
of the courts is not unitary. 

In a 2007 case, D.Z. v. Distrigaz Sud, Decision 4222, of 1 August 2007, the court of first 
instance in Bucharest  ruled in favour of the  complainant, who complained against being 
subjected to discriminatory conduct based on his affiliation with an NGO active in defending 

65   Romania, Law 324/2006 for the amendment of the Government Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the 

prevention and the punishment of all forms of discrimination, Art. 2 (6). 

66   National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării) (2011), 

Raportul privind implementarea Directivei rasiale în România pentru perioada 2003-2010, Bucharest, 
available at: http://www.cncd.org.ro/noutati/Angajari/Raportul-privind-implementarea-Directivei-rasiale-in-
Romania-pentru-perioada-2003-2010-101/. 

67   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Decision 92, 23 May 2007. Case Romani CRISS v. Traian Băsescu. The NCCD considered the 
assumption made by the President when calling a journalist ‘filthy Gipsy’ as being discriminatory to the 
Roma community in general. 

68   Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Case C-303/06 Coleman v Attridge Law and Steve Law. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the rights of LGBT people in Romania (ACCEPT) when paying a monthly utilities bill at the 
offices of the defendant. The defendant was ordered to pay EUR 1 000 as civil damages 
but  the  court  denied  the  request  of  the  complainant  for  institutional  measures  on 
combating discrimination in the workplace (the complainant requested that the defendant 
be ordered by the court to engage in general measures to combat discrimination in future, 
such as diversity management, equality training for employees, adopting a code of conduct 
with  clear  prohibitions).  The  decision  was  appealed  both  by  the  defendant  and  by  the 
complainant but the decision of the first court was upheld.69 

However,  in  a  2006  case,  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  found  that  the  NCCD 
wrongly issued a warning sanctioning as discrimination an advertising campaign targeting 
future  mothers  and  encouraging  them  to  undertake  pre-natal  screening  by  showing  the 
difficulties experienced by mothers of children with disabilities.70 As Romanian legislation 
allows for protection against discrimination, including on grounds of belonging to a ‘social 
group’ (such as mothers of children born with disabilities), the NCCD sanctioned the social 
campaign following requests from organisations of persons with disabilities, which deemed 
the  message  offensive  and  discriminatory.  The  NCCD  defined  mothers  of  children  with 
disabilities as a social group and not as a group deserving protection against discrimination 
based on association with persons  with disabilities. However, the  High Court  considered 
that the subject of the advertising are ‘mothers raising their children born ill, persons for 
whose situation the law does not provide for a criterion of discrimination and it cannot be 
accepted ... that these mothers might constitute a “social category” as provided by Article 
2(1) of the Ordinance ... From the evidence provided it is  beyond any doubt that in the 
particular advertisements there are no children or adults with disabilities,  and the NCCD 
takes into consideration mothers raising their children who were born ill.’ This reasoning 
of  the  court,  which  has  not  been  changed  by  subsequent  jurisprudence,  contradicts  the 
CJEU judgment in Coleman v Attridge Law and Steve Law. 

2.2  Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of direct discrimination 

In Romania, direct discrimination is prohibited in national law. It is defined in Article 2(1) 
of the Anti-discrimination Law as ‘any difference, exclusion, restriction or preference based 
on  race,  nationality,  ethnic  origin,  language,  religion,  social  status,  beliefs,  sex,  sexual 
orientation, age, disability, non-contagious chronic disease, HIV-positive status, belonging 
to a disadvantaged group or any other criterion, aiming to or resulting in a restriction or 
prevention  of  the  equal  recognition,  use  or  exercise  of  human  rights  and  fundamental 
freedoms in the political, economic, social and cultural field or in any other fields of public 
life.’71 

b) 

Justification of direct discrimination 

With  the  exception  of  genuine  and  determining  occupational  requirements,  the  Anti-
discrimination  Law  does  not  permit  justification  of  direct  discrimination  in  general,  or  in 
relation  to  particular  grounds.  Justifications  previously  allowed  in  regard  to  direct 
discrimination  in  relation  to  housing,  access  to  services  and  goods  (Article  10  of  Anti-
discrimination  Law),  where  such  a  ‘restriction  is  objectively  justified  by  a  legitimate 

69   Romania, Court of first instance No. 4, Bucharest (Judecătoria sectorului 4 Bucureşti), DZ v. Distrigaz Sud, 

Decision 4222 in File no. 710/4/2006, 1 August 2007. 

70   Romania, High Court of Justice and Cassation (Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție) Decision 3866/2006, file 

no. 34843/2/2005, CAN v. CNCD, 9 November 2006, available at: 
http://www.iccj.ro/cautare.php?id=37568. 

71   Romania, Governmental Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of 
discrimination (Ordonanța de Guvern 137/2000 privind prevenirea și sancționarea tuturor formelor de 
discriminare), 30 August 2000, Art. 2(1). 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
purpose  and  the  methods  used  to  reach  such  a  purpose  are  adequate  and  necessary’72 
were repealed in 2013 by means of an Emergency Ordinance.73 The new text of Article 10 
lists  the  activities  in  which  discrimination  is  prohibited  without  including  further 
qualifications: 

refusal to sell or rent a land or a real estate used as house;  
the refusal to grant a bank credit or to conclude any other kind of contract;  

‘c)  
d)  
e)   denying  of  access  for  a  person  or  a  group  to  services  offered  by  theatres,  movie 

f)  

theatres, libraries, museums, exhibitions;  
denying  of  access  for  a  person  or  a  group  to  services  offered  by  stores,  hotels, 
restaurants, pubs, discos or any kind of service provider, whether private or public; 
g)  denying  of  access  for  a  person  or  a  group  to  services  provided  for  by  public 
transportation companies – plane, ship, train, subway, bus, trolley, tram, cab, or any 
other means of transportation.’ 

2.2.1  Situation testing 

a) 

Legal framework 

In  Romania,  situation  testing  as  planned  method  for  investigating  discrimination  is  not 
expressly permitted in national law but neither is it prohibited, so judicial interpretation is 
still required. In its first years of activity, the NCCD was also involved in situation testing 
jointly with NGOs. However, this practice gradually ceased, reflecting limited resources as 
well  as  concerns  that  such  situation  testing  would  be  perceived  as  provocation  and 
dismissed by the courts. 

The NCCD does not have particular guidelines or protocols on the use of situation testing 
and only anecdotal data reflect the use of testing as means of gathering evidence in judicial 
proceedings. The 2006 amendments to the Anti-discrimination Law make video and audio 
recordings  admissible  in  cases  of  discrimination,  both  before  the  NCCD  and  before  the 
domestic courts. This is an exception to the standard civil procedure norms. 

b) 

Practice 

In  Romania,  situation  testing is  barely  used  in  practice  by  NGOs.  There  is  no  important 
case law on situation testing.  

2.3  Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of indirect discrimination 

In Romania, indirect discrimination is prohibited in national law. It is defined in Article 2 (3) 
of the Anti-discrimination Law which prohibits: 

72   Romania, Law 324/2006 for the amendment of the Government Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the 

prevention and the punishment of all forms of discrimination, 20.07.2006, Art. 10, stating: ‘Under the 
ordinance herein, the following deeds shall constitute a contravention, if the deed does not fall under the 
incidence of criminal law, when perpetrated against a person or a group on account of their belonging or to 
the belonging of the management (of the legal person) to a race, nationality, ethnic group, religion, social 
category or disadvantaged group, on account of their beliefs, sex or sexual orientation: .... g) denying of 
access for a person or a group to services provided for by public transportation companies – plane, ship, 
train, subway, bus, trolley, tram, cab, or any other means of transportation, excepting the cases when such 
a restriction is objectively justified by a legitimate purpose and the methods used to reach such a purpose 
are adequate and necessary.’ (translation by the author). 

73   Romania, Emergency Ordinance 19/2013 for the amendment of the Government Ordinance 137/2000 

regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of discrimination, 27 March 2013. 

39 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
‘any provisions, criteria or practices  apparently neutral which disadvantage certain 
persons  on  grounds  of  one  of  the  protected  grounds  from  para.(1),  unless  these 
practices, criteria and provisions are objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the 
methods used to reach that purpose are appropriate and necessary.’74 

Though the legal definition complies with those in the directives, in practice, enforcement 
of  the  prohibition  of  indirect  discrimination  is  problematic.  In  its  report  assessing  the 
implementation  of  the  Racial  Equality  Directive,  the  NCCD  mentions  that  between  2002 
and 2010 it sanctioned nine cases of indirect discrimination.75 However, not all the cases 
presented  as  indirect  discrimination  are  clear-cut.  For  example,  in  its  Decision  222  of 
7 April 2005, the NCCD found that the insistent objections of the local mayor against the 
appointment of the complainant as deputy director of the school on grounds of his being 
Romanian, and his advocacy in favour of employing a Hungarian deputy director, amounted 
to  indirect  discrimination.  In  deciding  thus,  the  NCCD  stated  that  it  took  note  of  the 
apparently  neutral  justifications  of  the  school  (the  position  of  deputy  director  was 
abolished)  and  of  the  fact  that  abolition  of  the  position  disadvantaged  persons  in  a 
comparable  situation  (the  Romanian  community),  and  sanctioned  the  defendant  with  a 
warning. The jurisprudence of the NCCD also blurs the lines between direct and indirect 
discrimination in a 2006 case regarding discrimination in education. In this case, the NCCD 
reacted ex  officio  on the basis  of media reports  of  separate classrooms for Roma pupils 
and classes with a higher percentage of Roma in a school in Tulcea. The NCCD found in 
Decision 75 of 2 March 2006 that indirect discrimination consisted in ‘placing Roma children 
in separate classes or in classes with disproportional percentages of Roma’ and sanctioned 
the school leadership with a warning. 

In a 2009 case, based on a petition from the Union of Hungarian Teachers, complaining 
against  the  annual  educational  plan  of  the  Mureș  county  school  inspectorate,  the  NCCD 
found in Decision 291 of 14 May 2009 that indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality 
had  occurred.  The  inspectorate  decreased  the  number  of  classes  in  the  Hungarian 
language,  thereby  failing  to  observe  the  proportional  presence  and  the  options  of 
Hungarian-speaking pupils, and was sanctioned with a fine of EUR 150 (RON 600). 

A  2010  decision  regarding  denial  of  access  to  public  places  (a  club)  to  Roma,  based  on 
absence  of  club  membership  cards  evidenced  a  more  nuanced  approach.  The  four 
complainants were denied access to a club due to lack of  club membership cards, while 
these  were  not  requested  from  other  (non-Roma)  persons.  The  defendant  claimed  that 
club membership cards were required for access. In order to apply for a membership card, 
potential clients were requested to supply a copy of their ID, a copy of the employment 
registry entry (official record of employment relations), the original of their criminal record 
document and a scan of their fingerprints. In its Decision 67 of 19 May 2010, the NCCD 
stated  that  while  requesting  a  membership  card  for  access  to  a  club  is  justified  by  a 
legitimate scope such as ensuring order and protecting property, the conditions imposed 
do not differentiate, and disproportionally affect persons  convicted for minor offences or 
persons who work as freelancers and do not have an employment registry entry. ‘Lacking 
objective  criteria  regarding  the  requirements,  the  granting  of  the  membership  card 
becomes,  in  practice,  arbitrary  ...  if  the  different  treatment  is  caused  by  arbitrary 
requirements, it cannot be decided that it is objectively justified and is reasonable from 
the perspective of the principle of equality.’ The NCCD found that the situation amounted 
to  indirect  discrimination:  ‘even  if  an  apparently  neutral  criterion  had  been  invoked,  in 
practice this led to disadvantaging two Roma as compared to other persons (Romanians), 

74   Romania, Governmental Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of 
discrimination (Ordonanța de Guvern 137/2000 privind prevenirea și sancționarea tuturor formelor de 
discriminare), 30 August 2000, Art. 2(3). 

75   National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării) (2011), 

Raportul privind implementarea Directivei rasiale în România pentru perioada 2003-2010, Bucharest, 
available at: http://www.cncd.org.ro/noutati/Angajari/Raportul-privind-implementarea-Directivei-rasiale-in-
Romania-pentru-perioada-2003-2010-101/. 

40 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
without  an  objective  justification,  and  the  means  for  achieving  the  objective  were  not 
adequate.’ 

b) 

Justification test for indirect discrimination 

In  its  case  law,  the  NCCD  extensively  relies  on  ECtHR  and  CJEU  jurisprudence  when 
discussing indirect discrimination and assessing legitimate aims, appropriate and necessary 
measures or objective justification. 

In a 2006 case filed by Romani CRISS against the  Dumbrăveni Theoretical High School, 
the  NCCD  sanctioned  indirect  discrimination  and  in  its  legal  reasoning  assessed  the 
legitimate aims as well as the measures taken in order to pursue the declared aims. The 
claimant, a Roma NGO, complained against the practice of transferring Roma pupils from 
the Theoretical High School to a special school, leading to a situation where almost 90 % 
of  the  pupils  attending  the  special  school  were  Roma.  The  High  School  instituted  a 
procedure  for  transferring  to  the  special  school  pupils  who  failed  to  attain  the  grades 
required  to  pass  a  class  for  more  than  two  or  three  years  in  succession  and  who  were 
evaluated for transfer by a special commission established by law at the level of the local 
general  directorate  for  the  protection  of  the  child  and  for  social  assistance.  The  special 
commission  decided  if  the  pupils  had  intellectual  disabilities  and  whether  they  needed 
special education. In its decision, issued on 11 June 2008, the NCCD referred to the ECtHR 
decision in D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic of 13 November 2007 (Application no. 
57325/00), assessed the adverse effect of incentives granted in support of children with 
disabilities (benefits in food, transportation, financial support etc.) and concluded that even 
if  the  procedure  for  transferring  children  to  the  special  school  observed  the  legal 
requirements,  in  practice  it  led  to  discriminatory  outcomes.  The  NCCD  decided  that  the 
case amounted to indirect discrimination and recommended the Ministry of Education to 
take all ‘measures necessary in order to ensure implementation of the principle of equal 
opportunities in schools, and to take measures to redress the discriminatory treatment of 
Roma pupils who had been transferred from regular schools to special schools based on 
socio-economic needs’ (and not based on disability). 

c) 

Comparison in relation to age discrimination 

The Anti-discrimination Law does not specify how a comparison is to be made in relation 
to age discrimination. 

2.3.1  Statistical evidence 

a) 

Legal framework 

In  Romania  there  are  national  rules  permitting  data  collection  under  specific  conditions 
such as Law 677/2001 on the Protection of Persons regarding the Use of Personal Data and 
the Free Movement of Personal Data.76 Articles 20 (6) and 27 (4) of the Anti-discrimination 
Law as amended in 2013 provide that:  

‘The  interested  person  will  present  facts  based  on  which  it  can  be  presumed  that 
direct or indirect discrimination exists, and the person against whom the complaint 
was  filed  has  the  duty  to  prove  that  no  infringement  of  the  principle  of  equal 
treatment occurred. Before the Steering Board (the courts) any means of proof can 
be  brought,  observing  the  constitutional  regime  of  fundamental  rights,  including 
audio and video recordings and statistical data.’ 

76   Romania, Law 677 on the Protection of Persons regarding the Use of Personal Data and the Free Movement 

of Personal Data, 21 November 2001. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  Anti-discrimination  Law  does  not  establish  any  subsequent  criterion  for  the 
admissibility of such evidence before the NCCD or the courts of law. The NCCD has used 
statistical data in some of its cases. There were no particular requirements imposed for the 
assessment of the statistical data. 

There are no reports regarding the use of statistical data before the courts of law or for 
purposes of public policy or positive action measures. Difficulty is caused by the absence 
of  relevant  equality  data  due  to  a  faulty  interpretation  of  the  specific  legislation. 
Article 7 (1) of Law 677/2001 on the Protection of Persons regarding the Use of Personal 
Data and the Free Movement of Personal Data prohibits ‘the use of personal data regarding 
the racial or ethnic origin, political, religious, philosophical or similar beliefs, trade union 
membership, as well as personal data regarding health status or sexual life’.77 However, 
collection  of  personal  data  is  still  possible  under  certain  conditions,  as  provided  by 
Article 7 (2) of Law 677/2001: 

a)  with the express consent of the person concerned; 
b)  when required for the purpose of observing specific duties or rights of the operator 

in the area of employment; 

c)  when  required  for  the  protection  of  life,  physical  integrity  or  health  of  the  person 

concerned or of another person; 

d)  when conducted during legitimate activities by a foundation, association or any other 
not-for-profit  organisation  with  a  political,  philosophical,  religious  or  trade  union-
related purpose, if the person concerned is a member of or has regular dealings with 
that entity; 

e)  when carried out in relation to data made publicly available by the specific person; 
f) 

when  necessary  for  establishing,  exercising  or  defending  a  right  before  a  court  of 
law; 

g)  when necessary for purposes of preventive medicine and other medical purposes; 
h)  where the law includes an express provision with the purpose of protecting important 
public  interest,  under  the  condition  that  data  collection  should  be  carried  out  in 
compliance  with  protection  of  the  rights  of  the  person  concerned  and  with  all 
guarantees provided by the law. 

The list of exemptions, particularly that regarding data collection in relation to important 
public interest (such as designing effective public policies in relation to minorities) allows 
for the possibility of compiling and using relevant statistical data, if there is a will to do 
this. 

Similarly, Article 5 (5) of Law 489/2006 on Religious Freedom and the General Regime of 
Religious Denominations prohibits: 

‘the  processing  of  personal  data  concerning  religious  beliefs  or  membership  of 
denominations, except for the case of a national census as sanctioned under the law 
or the situation where the concerned individual has provided explicit agreement to 
that effect.’ 

Law 489/2006 provides that ‘it is hereby forbidden to compel an individual to declare his 
or her religion, in any relationship with public authorities or private-law legal entities.’78 

In  Romania,  statistical  evidence  is  permitted  by  national  law  (in  the  Anti-discrimination 
Law) in order to establish indirect discrimination, not explicitly in the definition of indirect 
discrimination  in  Article 2 (3)  but  in  general  by  Article 20 (6)  and  Article 27 (4)  listing 
admissible evidence. 

77   Romania, Law 677 on the Protection of Persons regarding the Use of Personal Data and the Free 

Movement of Personal Data, 21 November 2001. 

78   Romania, Law 489/2006 on Religious Freedom and the General Status of Religions, 28 December 2006, 

Art. 5 (6). 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
b) 

Practice 

In  Romania  statistical  evidence  in  order  to  establish  indirect  discrimination  is  used  in 
practice, though the use of such evidence is rather limited due to the absence of equality 
data. 

In  decision  A.M.  v.  Direcţia  Generală  a  Finanţelor  Publice  a  judeţului  Harghita,  [A.M.  v. 
Harghita county Public Finances General Inspectorate], Decision no. 43 of 9 January 2008, 
file number 353/2007, regarding the advertising of employment vacancies as civil servants 
with  the  local  finances  inspectorate,  which  mentioned  ‘knowledge  of  the  Hungarian 
language’  as  a  specific  condition,  the  NCCD  made  extensive  use  of  statistical  data.  The 
NCCD compared the percentages of civil servants speaking only Romanian or Hungarian 
and  their  specific  positions  within  the  institution  as  well  as  their  geographical 
representation in the context of the percentages of Hungarians or Romanians in each city, 
to  assess  the  defendant’s  understanding  and  fulfilment  of  its  legal  obligation  to  make 
arrangements  to  respond  to  the  needs  of  national  minorities  in  counties  where  national 
minorities represent at least 20 % of the population. The NCCD sanctioned the Harghita 
county Public Finances General Inspectorate with an administrative fine of EUR 250 (RON 
1 000).79 

2.4  Harassment (Article 2(3)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of harassment 

In Romania, harassment is prohibited in national law. Harassment is defined in Article 2(5) 
of the Anti-discrimination Law as a specific form of discrimination, providing, however, for 
a list of protected grounds which differs from those in Article 2(1). The different wording 
is  caused  by  the  lack  of  consistency  in  the  various  rounds  of  amendments.  However, 
harassment was interpreted as being covered by the main list of protected criteria, in spite 
of its remaining definition as: 

‘any behaviour on grounds of race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, social 
status,  beliefs,  sex,  sexual  orientation,  belonging  to  a  disadvantaged  group,  age, 
handicap,  refugee  or  asylum  seeker  status  or  any  other  criterion,  which  leads  to 
establishing an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment.’ 

A specific definition of sexual harassment is provided by the Law on equal opportunities 
between men and women, in the context of employment relations, in Article 4 (c): 

’any  form  of  behaviour  in  relation  to  gender,  about  which  the  person  who  is 
responsible  knows  that  is  affecting  the  dignity  of  persons,  if  such  a  behaviour  is 
rejected and represents the motivation for a decision affecting those persons.’80 

Article 223 of the new Criminal Code, which was adopted on 17 July 2009 and entered into 
force  on  1 February  2014,  defines  and  sanctions  sexual  harassment  as  ‘repeatedly 
soliciting sexual favours as part of an employment relationship or a similar relationship, if 
by  so  doing  the  victim  was  intimidated  or  placed  in  a  humiliating  situation,  shall  be 
punishable by no less than 3 months and no more than 1 year of imprisonment or by a 
fine.81 

79   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării) 
decision A.M. v. Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a judeţului Harghita, [A.M. v. Harghita county Public 
Finances General Inspectorate], Decision no. 43 of 9 January 2008, file number 353/2007. 

80   Romania, Law 340/2006 for the amendment and approval of Law 202/2002 regarding equal opportunities 

between women and men, 25 July 2006). 

81   Romania, Law 286/2009 on the Criminal Code, 17 July 2009 official translation available at: 

http://www.legislationline.org/documents/section/criminal-codes/country/8. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
None  of  the  definitions  provided  are  in  complete  compliance  with  the  definition  of 
harassment set out in the directives, as they fail to sanction unwanted conduct related to 
any of the grounds in connection with the purpose of such actions, not just on the basis of 
the  effect  of  violating  the  dignity  of  a  person  and  of  creating  an  intimidating,  hostile, 
degrading,  humiliating  or  offensive  environment.  They  are  thus  in  need  of  judicial 
interpretation. 

There are cases in which harassment was used as a catch-all concept to sanction forms of 
discrimination  not  otherwise  provided  for  in  the  Anti-discrimination  Law.  As  a  specific 
prohibition of residential segregation is lacking in the Law, in 2011, the NCCD defined as 
harassment  the  erection  of  a  concrete  wall  1.8-2  metres  high  and  approximately  100 
metres long between a Roma neighbourhood and the main road in the northern Romanian 
city of Baia Mare. In response to media outcry, the wall was presented by the mayor of 
the city as designed to prevent traffic accidents. In its Decision 439 of 15 November 2011, 
the  NCCD  discusses  the  impact  of  segregation  for  a  community  and  sanctions  it  as 
harassment  provided  for  by  Article 2(5)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  together  with 
Article 15 on the infringement of human dignity. The NCCD decided that the erection of a 
concrete wall separating the area of social housing predominantly occupied by Roma from 
the rest of the neighbourhood ‘is a very serious deed which negatively affects the life of 
the  entire  Roma  community’.  Subsequently,  the  NCCD  decided  to  impose  a  fine  of 
approximately EUR 1 500 (RON 6 000) and to recommend the demolition of the concrete 
wall. The NCCD decision was challenged by the Mayor of Baia Mare before the Cluj Court 
of Appeal, which decided that the aim invoked by Mayor Cherecheș (protection of public 
safety  due  to  alleged  traffic  accidents  in  the  area)  was  legitimate.  The  Court  of  Appeal 
underlined the proportionality of the measure, but failed to share the burden of proof and 
request  evidence  from  the  local  authorities  to  support  their  justifications  and  failed  to 
interpret harassment correctly as unwanted conduct with the purpose or effect of creating 
an  intimidating,  hostile,  degrading  and  humiliating  environment  by  correlating  the 
Romanian  (incomplete)  provision  with  the  definition  in  Article 2 (3)  of  Directive 
43/2000/EC. The NCCD appealed the decision of the Cluj Court of Appeal before the High 
Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  as  the  final  court  of  appeal.  The  High  Court  decided  to 
modify the judgment of the Cluj Court of Appeal by rejecting the challenge filed by Mayor 
Cătălin Cherecheș of Baia Mare, upheld the decision of the NCCD that discrimination had 
occurred  and  ruled  that  the  mayor  should  pay  a  fine.  The  decision  of  the  High  Court  is 
final.82  The  Cluj  Court  of  Appeal  decision,  which  differs  from  that  of  the  High  Court, 
indicates  once  more  that  judicial  interpretation  is  required  to  confirm  compliance  of 
Article 2(5) of the Anti-discrimination Law with the EU non-discrimination directives, given 
that  the  definition  is  not  identical  and  only  the  actual  outcome,  the  effect  and  not  the 
purpose is covered by the law. 

Findings regarding potential harassment are sometimes limited due to the use of two types 
of justification: invoking freedom of expression or presenting harassment as a violation of 
the right to dignity provided for in Article 15 of the Anti-discrimination Law which, however, 
was interpreted by the NCCD as requiring the intention to generate humiliation. In regard 
to the first limitation, Article 2(8) of the Romanian Ant-discrimination Law states that its 
provisions cannot be interpreted so as to limit freedom of expression, freedom of opinion 
and the right to information. Although the NCCD usually invokes the case law of the ECtHR 
in understanding the limitations to freedom of expression, the practice of the NCCD and of 
the  courts  is  not  unitary  and  many  discriminatory  speeches  made  by  politicians  remain 
unsanctioned on the basis of this justification. In regard to the requirement to establish 
intention to discriminate in order to find an infringement of the right to human dignity, this 
interpretation  has  also  been  developed  by  the  NCCD  in  relation  to  cases  involving 
politicians and has been confirmed by the courts. For example, in the case of the allegedly 
discriminatory statements made by Prime Minister Victor Viorel Ponta on 20 March 2013 in 

82   Romania, High Court of Cassation and Justice (Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție), Decision 640, file 

1741/33/2011, 27 September 2013. The summary of the decision of the court is available in Romanian at: 
http://www.scj.ro/. 

44 

 
 
 
                                                 
relation to the Roma community, the NCCD found that no discrimination occurred, given 
that the defendant was exercising his right to free speech as provided for in Article 2(8) 
and  that  the  claimants  did  not  prove  the  intention  of  the  defendant  to  violate  human 
dignity.83 The Court of Appeal upheld the NCCD decision, finding that the claimant did not 
have  the  scope  or  intention  to  discriminate.84  The  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice 
upheld this judgment as final in its decision of 12 March 2015.85 

b) 

Scope of liability for harassment 

In Romania, when harassment is perpetrated by an employee, both the employer and the 
employee are liable. There is no specific provision in the Anti-discrimination Law and the 
general torts provisions apply. However, the NCCD and the courts consistently found that 
employers can be held liable together with their employees if discrimination occurs within 
an  employment  relationship  but  are  not  liable  for  the  actions  of  third  parties  (tenants, 
customers etc.) over which they have no control. The liability can be both individual (the 
harasser) and joint (both the employer and the harasser). In order for the liability to be 
joint (solidary), a specific link between the employer and the harasser needs to be justified, 
evidencing  the  rights  and  duties  of  the  employer  or  service  provider  in  relation  to  the 
harasser. 

2.5  Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) 

a) 

Prohibition of instructions to discriminate 

In Romania, instructions to discriminate are not prohibited in national law. Article 2(2) of 
the Anti-discrimination Law prohibits instead orders to discriminate. Instructions are not 
defined. Article 2(2) states: ‘The order to discriminate a person on any ground mentioned 
in para. (1) is considered discrimination.’  It should be noted that the terminology might 
generate  confusion  as  the  wording  used  in  Romanian  is  ‘order’,  hence  implying  a 
hierarchical position, and not ‘instruction.’ Though the law provides for the prohibition of 
an  order  to  discriminate,  it  fails  to  define  this  further,  so  that  judicial  interpretation  is 
required in order to assess compliance with the definitions in the directives. The prohibition 
of orders to discriminate is applicable both to individuals and to legal persons, as provided 
in Article 3 of the Anti-discrimination Law, in spite of specific provisions on the liability of 
legal persons.  In practice, the NCCD and the courts assess the liability  of the  individual 
discriminator and of the legal person together. 

The members of the Steering Board of the NCCD acknowledge difficulties in investigating 
cases of alleged orders to discriminate due to the challenges raised by the need to prove 
the existence of such orders (particularly in regard to access to pubs or clubs when door 
security guards invoke an instruction from owners or from management). In Decision 180 
of 18 February 2008, the NCCD sanctioned an instruction to discriminate leading to denial 
of  access  to  goods  and  services  to  a  Roma.  The  complainant  (H.C.)  raised  a  complaint 
against an announcement posted at the entrance of an internet café stating: ‘Beginning 
with [date] Roma are not allowed in this internet café because we had a lot of problems 
with them, they are quarrelling and fighting every evening’. The sanction issued both for 
direct discrimination and for the order to discriminate was a fine of approximately EUR 150 
(RON 600). 

83   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării),Decision 170, file 320/2013 and file 333/2013, 09 April 2013. 

84   Romania, Court of Appeal Bucharest (Curtea de Apel Bucureşti), file 3123/2/2013, 9 October 2013.  
85   Romania, High Court of Cassation and Justice (Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție), Decision 735, 19 February 

2015, file 3123/2/2013, 19 February 2015. The summary with the decision of the court is available in 
Romanian at: 
http://www.scj.ro/1094/Detaliidosar?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=2000
00000304053.  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  new  Criminal  Code,  which  was  adopted  in  2009  and  entered  into  force  in  February 
2014, rephrased the definition of incitement to hatred or discrimination in Article 369 by 
deleting the list of protected grounds and introducing the following wording: ‘incitement of 
the public, using any means, to hatred or discrimination against a category of persons is 
punished with prison from six months to three years or with a fine.’86  

In Romania, instructions do not explicitly constitute a form of discrimination. The use of 
the  word  ‘order’  instead  of  ‘instruction’  in  Romanian  might  lead  to  a  restrictive 
interpretation, limiting the prohibition of discrimination to hierarchical relations. While the 
NCCD interpretation complies with the meaning of the directives by broad interpretation of 
the terminology, the courts have yet to determine the understanding of Article 2(2) and 
its limitations, hence judicial interpretation is still required in order to confirm compliance 
with EU law. 

b) 

Scope of liability for instructions to discriminate 

In Romania, the instructor and the discriminator  are both liable. The Anti-discrimination 
Law  (GO  137/2000)  does  not  include  specific  provisions  on  the  scope  of  the  liability. 
Liability is individual and in order to find discrimination, the NCCD identifies the agent of 
discrimination and their responsibility. The case law of the NCCD indicates that employers 
can be held liable for actions of their employees, if there is joint responsibility. The NCCD 
uses personal liability in determining the degree of responsibility for each party. Employers 
have  not  been  held  liable  for  actions  of  third  parties.  Trade  unions  or  professional 
associations  cannot  be  held  liable  for  the  actions  of  their  members  unless  the 
discriminatory conduct  represents the policy of the organisation or is carried out  from a 
position of leadership, representing the policies of the entity.  

The  courts  have  imposed  vicarious  liability  upon  employers  for  the  actions  of  their 
employees.87 A person who discriminates in accordance with an instruction to discriminate 
would be held liable. 

In its Decision 365 of 14 September 2011 in NCCD and L Rausch v. S.C. Elaine S.R.L.88 
(owner of Heaven Club in Timişoara), the NCCD clarifies the conditions for determining the 
responsibility of a private company for  the actions  of its contractors (the security guard 
employed by a security company) and discusses the relationship of subordination between 
the contracting party and its contractor, by stating the obligation of private companies to 
include  in  their  internal  regulations  provisions  on  equality  and  non-discrimination  and 
provisions referring to the management of discrimination cases. In response to the petition 
of  the  complainant,  who  was  refused  entry  to  a  night  club  due  to  her  disability,  the 
respondent stated, among others, that the security guard who refused entry to Ms Rausch 
was not an employee of the club but of a security company; the club is no longer working 
with this security guard; and the complainant had never had direct contact with a direct 
employee or representative of the club. The NCCD issued four separate administrative fines 
for two different  situations, each violating two distinct articles of the  Anti-discrimination 
Law (GO 137/2000), finding discrimination in access to services available to the public and 
discrimination affecting the right to human dignity of the person on the ground of disability. 

86   Romania, Law 286/2009 on the Criminal Code, 17 July 2009. Official translation available at: 

http://www.legislationline.org/documents/section/criminal-codes/country/8.  

87   Romania, Bihor County Tribunal (Tribunalul Bihor) Civil Judgement (Sentinta Civila) No. 620/L.M./2007, File 

No.6094/111/2006, 1 October 2007. B. R. v. A. V. [administrator of the Oradea Zoo], M. I., [human 
resources manager] Regia Autonomă de Pieţe, Agrement şi Salubritate Oradea [employer]. 
88   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Decision 365, 14 September 2011, NCCD and L Rausch v. S.C. Elaine S.R.L. (owner of 
Heaven Club, Timişoara). 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The NCCD sanctioned the company owning the club with fines amounting to a total of EUR 
1 250 (RON 5 000), reportedly the highest sanction issued up to that time.89  

The New Civil Code (Law 287/2009) mentions in Article 219 the regime of liability for legal 
acts. ‘Lawful or unlawful acts perpetrated by the bodies of a legal entity create an obligation 
for the legal entity itself, but only if such acts relate to the powers or with the scope of the 
responsibilities assigned. (2) Unlawful acts generate both the personal and joint liability of 
those who perpetrated them, both in relation with the legal entity itself and in relation to 
third persons.’ Article 220 on liability of members of the bodies of the legal entity provide 
that ‘the decision-making body can decide, with the legally required majority, if it will take 
action against administrators, censors, directors and other persons who acted as members 
of the bodies of the legal entity, for damages caused by such persons when infringing their 
duties as assigned.’ 

2.6  Reasonable  accommodation  duties  (Article  2(2)(b)(ii)  and  Article  5 

Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Implementation  of  the  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  in  the  field  of 
employment 

In  Romania,  the  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  is  not  included  in  the  Anti-
discrimination Law. The special legislation on the promotion and protection of the rights of 
persons  with  disabilities  (Law  448/2006)  provides  for  reasonable  accommodation  in  the 
workplace as a facility for the employee but not as a duty for the employer. Law 448/2006 
also mentions in general terms duties to facilitate accessibility to various public and private 
services and facilities. Law 448/2006 defines reasonable accommodation in the workplace 
as: 

‘all the changes undertaken by the employer in order to facilitate the exercising of 
the right to work of the person having a handicap (disability); this entails adjusting 
the work schedule, buying supporting equipment, devices and technologies related 
to the disability and other similar measures.’90 

According to Article 83 of Law 448/2006, reasonable accommodation in the work place is 
ensured both to persons with disabilities seeking a job and to those already employed, no 
matter what type of disability they might have. There is no provision for any limitation or 
restriction regarding persons entitled to claim reasonable accommodation, or guidance as 
to how the disability will be assessed and what tests for reasonableness are to be applied. 

Law 448/2006 provides no sanction to be used where there is failure to comply, but the 
general anti-discrimination provisions might be applied. There are no cases reported in the 
courts  or before the NCCD sanctioning direct discrimination in access to  employment or 
access to services in which lack of reasonable accommodation was the cause.  However, 
failure to provide reasonable accommodation as required in Article 83 of Law 448/2006 is 
mentioned  among  other  arguments  in  a  limited  number  of  cases  of  the  NCCD.91  In  a 
notable 2008 case the NCCD found against the General Directorate for Social Assistance 
and  Child  Protection,  the  Ministry  of  Labour,  Family  and  Equal  Opportunities  and  the 
National  Authority  for  Persons  with  a  Handicap  for  failure  to  ensure  reasonable 

89   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Decision 365, 14 September 2011, NCCD and L Rausch v. S.C. Elaine S.R.L. (owner of 
Heaven Club, Timişoara). 

90   Romania, Law 448/2006 on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Persons with a Handicap, 6 

December 2006, Art. 5 (4). An unofficial translation of the law is available at: 
http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/LEGE%20448%20engleza.pdf.  

91   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Decision no. 463, file number 210/2009, in petition no. 4918 of 12 May, 2 September 2009, 
Complainant v. Respondent [former employer]. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
accommodation  to  a  person  with  disabilities  and  for  not  providing  adequate  material 
support for persons with disabilities and their assistants.92 The case was initiated by H. A., 
the mother of a visually impaired child, who complained about the lack of software needed 
for  educational  purposes  and  the  absence  of  posts  with  audio  signals  at  road  crossings, 
and  that  the  amount  of  money  for  disability  benefits  and  personal  assistant  support  is 
insufficient to ensure normal living conditions for two persons. The NCCD emphasised that 
the defendants have the duty to check for observance of the relevant legal provisions but 
that they failed to prove that such checks took place. Consequently the NCCD found that 
not ensuring provision of reasonable accommodation in the form of appropriate educational 
software  amounts  to  discrimination,  as  does  any  failure  to  supervise  the  observance  of 
legal provisions which leads to discriminatory effects. The NCCD issued a recommendation 
to  the  National  Authority  for  Persons  with  a  Handicap,  without  imposing  any  monetary 
sanction. 

In the specific area of employment, a similar decision would be also issued under the caveat 
of the new Article 41 of the Anti-discrimination Law as amended in 2013 which allows ‘the 
difference of treatment based on one of the criteria provided for in Article 2 …when due to 
the nature of the occupational activities or of the context in which it takes place, such a 
characteristic amounts to genuine and determining occupational requirements, under the 
requirement  that  the  measures  are  objectively  justified  by  a  legitimate  aim  and  the 
methods pursued are adequate and necessary’. The new Article 41 is using the language 
of  Article 4  of  Directive  2000/78/EC  and  repeals  the  former  Article 9  of  the  Anti-
discrimination Law. 

b) 

Practice 

Existing  NCCD  and  court  jurisprudence  does  not  allow  assessment  of  whether,  when 
sanctioning  failure  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation,  the  restrictive  definition  of 
disability in Law 448/2006 or the more comprehensive, quite general approach to disability 
used so far by the NCCD would be used. However, the NCCD approach is still in need of 
crystallisation, as the national equality body has so far been  reluctant to clearly identify 
and consistently sanction failure to ensure reasonable accommodation. 

The wording ‘disproportionate burden’ is not present in the legislation. There is no legal 
provision  or  legal  interpretation  of  what  is  ‘reasonable’  and  what  constitutes  a 
‘disproportionate burden’, neither in the practice of the NCCD nor of the National Authority 
for Persons with a Handicap (NAPH) (Autoritatea Naţională pentru Persoanele cu Handicap) 
nor of the Ministry of Labour after NAPH was incorporated into the Ministry. In view of the 
lack  of  specific  legal  provisions  or  consistent  jurisprudence,  it  is  impossible  to  assess  if 
there is any limit on the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation and how such a 
limit would be defined.  

In a 2009 case regarding a person with disabilities who was refused renewal of their labour 
contract  with  the  justification  of  a  no-hiring  policy  and  a  lack  of  vacant  positions  with 
working conditions appropriate for a person with an accentuated degree of disability, the 
NCCD rejected the arguments of the defendant, mentioning inter alia the duty to provide 
reasonable accommodation as  specified in the law and  emphasising that, given that the 
complainant had worked for a long time in that specific position, it is reasonable to believe 
that there was no need for further accommodation. The NCCD did not look into the specifics 
of  what  measures  were  required  to  comply  with  the  duty  of  ensuring  reasonable 
accommodation,  as,  due  to  the  prior  employment  relationship,  it  operated  on  the 

92   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării) 

Decision no. 596, file no. 441/2008, 13 November 2008. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
assumption that these requirements were already observed.93 

Law  448/2006  introduces  certain  benefits  for  employers  of  persons  with  disabilities, 
including tax allowances for the costs of adaptation of the workplace and equipment and 
devices bought to  ensure accommodation of persons with disabilities.94 In addition, Law 
448/2006  provides  for  the  duty  to  provide  adequate  technical  support  in  the  area  of 
education  (Article  18),  for  access  to  public  buildings  (Article  63)  and  for  access  to 
transportation services (Article 64). 

For example, Article 18 of Law 448/2006 mentions the duty to provide technical equipment, 
adapt  furniture  to  the  needs  of  pupils  with  disabilities,  ensure  special  textbooks  and 
software applications. Failure to comply with these obligations is sanctioned with a fine in 
the range of approximately EUR 750-2 250 (RON 3 000-9 000). The authority responsible 
for  identifying  and  sanctioning  such  cases  is  the  NAPH.95  However,  the  NAPH  has  been 
reorganised  and  incorporated  as  a  department  within  the  Ministry  of  Labour  as  part  of 
changes to institutional policies in response to the financial crisis, including downsizing of 
social assistance services. Even prior to this, the NAPH was sanctioned by the NCCD for its 
failure  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  and  to  supervise  observance  of  the  legal 
provisions in this regard.96 

With  few  exceptions,  the  NCCD  cases  which  could  be  relevant  from  the  perspective  of 
sanctioning failure to secure reasonable accommodation in areas outside employment do 
not specifically mention the concept of reasonable accommodation. This might be because 
it was easier for the NCCD to look at the specific provision on denial of access to services 
or  because  reasonable  accommodation  and  accessibility  are  not  defined  in  the  Anti-
discrimination Law. 

c) 

Definition of disability and non-discrimination protection 

There is no definition of disability in the Anti-discrimination Law and the NCCD uses in its 
cases the legal definitions provided by the special legislation on the rights of persons with 
disabilities (Law 448/2006 and subsequent legislation). Article 2 of Law 448/2006 provides 
the  legal  definition  as  ‘disabled  persons  shall  be  those  persons  who,  due  to  a  physical, 
mental or sensorial affection, do not have the abilities for normally performing the day to-
day activities, requiring protection measures in support of their social recovery, integration 
and  inclusion.’  When  claiming  reasonable  accommodation  the  general  definition  of 
disability as understood by the NCCD would apply. 

d)  Duties to provide reasonable accommodation outside the field of employment 

There  is  no  duty  in  the  Romanian  Anti-discrimination  Law  to  provide  reasonable 
accommodation  for  people  with  disabilities  outside  the  employment  field.  However,  Law 
448/2006  provides  for  the  duty  to  provide  adequate  technical  support  in  the  area  of 
education  (Article  18),  for  access  to  public  buildings  (Article  63)  and  for  access  to 
transportation services (Article 64). 

For example, Article 18 of Law 448/2006 mentions the duty to provide technical equipment, 
adapt  furniture  to  the  needs  of  pupils  with  disabilities,  ensure  special  textbooks  and 

93   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării) 
decision no. 77, file no. 260/2008, 3 February 2009. Complainant v. ANIF R.A., Sucursala Teritorială Timiş 
[Timiş county office].  

94   Romania, Law 448/2006 on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Persons with a Handicap, 

6 December 2006, Art. 84. 

95   Romania, Law 448/2006 on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Persons with a Handicap, 

6 December 2006, Art. 100. 

96   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării) 

Decision no. 596, file no. 441/2008, 13 November 2008. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
software applications. Failure to comply with these obligations is sanctioned with a fine in 
the range of approximately EUR 750-2 250 (RON 3 000-9 000). The authority responsible 
for  identifying  and  sanctioning  such  cases  is  the  NAPH.97  However,  the  NAPH  has  been 
reorganised  and  incorporated  as  a  department  within  the  Ministry  of  Labour  as  part  of 
changes to institutional policies in response to the financial crisis, including downsizing of 
social assistance services. Even prior to this, the NAPH was sanctioned by the NCCD for its 
failure  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  and  to  supervise  observance  of  the  legal 
provisions in this regard. 

Most of the NCCD cases which could be relevant from the perspective of sanctioning failure 
to  secure  reasonable  accommodation  in  areas  outside  employment  do  not  specifically 
mention the concept of reasonable accommodation. This might be the case because it was 
easier  for  the  NCCD  to  look  at  the  specific  provision  on  denial  of  access  to  services  or 
because  reasonable  accommodation  and  accessibility  are  not  defined  in  the  Anti-
discrimination Law. A notable exception is a 2008 decision in which the NCCD found that 
the NAPH was responsible for the failure to ensure reasonable accommodation for a person 
with  disabilities  and  for  not  providing  adequate  material  support  for  persons  with 
disabilities and their assistants. The NCCD issued a recommendation carrying no pecuniary 
penalty to the NAPH.98 

e) 

Failure to meet the duty of reasonable accommodation 

In  Romania,  failure  to  meet  the  duty  of  reasonable  accommodation  does  count  as 
discrimination.  Law  448/2006  on  the  Protection  and  Promotion  of  the  Rights  of  Persons 
with  a  Handicap  does  not  include  specific  sanctions  for  failure  to  ensure  reasonable 
accommodation  in  the  workplace  and  does  not  define  such  failure  as  discrimination. 
Nevertheless,  NCCD  interpretation  so  far  suggests  that  the  failure  to  ensure  reasonable 
accommodation would be sanctioned as discrimination. The Anti-discrimination Law has so 
far  been  applied  accordingly  (Articles  5-8).  However,  the  new  Article  41  of  the  Anti-
discrimination Law, as introduced in 2013, allows for justifications in cases of differential 
treatment in employment relationships when the measures are objectively justified by a 
legitimate  aim  and  the  methods  pursued  are  adequate  and  necessary.  There  is  no 
jurisprudence  from  the  courts  or  the  national  equality  body  so  far,  but  in  theory  the 
exemption  in  Article  41  could  be  invoked  in  order  to  justify  failure  to  secure  reasonable 
accommodation  if  all  the  conditions  of  the  test  introduced  in  the  new  Art.  41  are  met.99 
Potential  sanctions  issued  by  the  NCCD  after  the  2013  amendments  to  the  Anti-
discrimination  Law  are  fines  in  the  range  of  EUR  250-7 500  (RON  1 000-30 000)  if  the 
victim is an individual and EUR 500-25 000 (RON 2 000-100 000) if the victims are a group 
or a community. 

In  a  2007  case,  the  NCCD  sanctioned  as  discrimination  and  issued  an  administrative 
warning against the defendant in its Case 255 of 17 September 2007, M.E.R. v dr. PG and 
the mayoralty of village V. The complainant, a dental technician with a hearing impairment 
complained  that  her  patients  and  the  doctors  who  worked  with  her  could  not  reach  her 
office  as  Doctor  PG,  who  had  an  office  on  the  same  floor,  used  to  lock  the  doors,  thus 
making access impossible as the complainant could not hear the bells. She requested that 

97   Romania/Law 448/2006 on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Persons with a Handicap, 

6 December 2006, Art. 100. 

98   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării) 

Decision no. 596, file no. 441/2008, 13 November 2008. 

99   The new Art.41 as adopted in 2013 defines occupational requirements as reflected by Art. 4 of Directive 

2000/78/EC and abrogated Art. 9, which previously dealt with this topic in a rather unclear manner, as it 
stated that ‘the provisions of Arts. 5-8 (prohibition of discrimination in employment relations), cannot be 
interpreted as restricting the right of the employer to refuse to employ a person who does not correspond to 
determining occupational requirements in that particular field, as long as the refusal does not amount to an 
act of discrimination under the understanding of this Ordinance, and the measures are objectively justified 
by a legitimate aim and the methods used are adequate and necessary.’ 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the entry into the building be left open during office hours to allow her to meet her clients. 
In its decision, the NCCD also applied the provisions of Law 448/2006, in particular Article 
74, providing for ‘the right of the person with disabilities to enjoy all the conditions required 
for choosing and exercising his or her profession or trade, for getting and maintaining a 
job, as well as to develop professionally’ and for the correlative duty of public authorities 
to ‘a) promote the idea that a person with disabilities who is working constitutes added 
value to the society and for his or her community; b) promote a work environment open, 
inclusive and accessible for persons with disabilities.’100 

f) 

Duties to provide reasonable accommodation in respect of other grounds 

In  Romania,  there  is  no  duty  in  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  to  provide  reasonable 
accommodation in respect of other grounds in the public sector and/or the private sector.  

Limited accommodation in respect of religion is provided in Article 134 (1) F of the Labour 
Code in relation to observance of religious celebrations of employees by granting two days’ 
holiday for two religious celebrations each year, to be taken in accordance with the faith 
of the employee, subject to the condition that the faith of the employee is recognised as a 
religion  (cult) by the state – a special procedure established by Law 489/2006, the Law 
on Religious Freedom and the General Status of Religious Denominations.101 

In addition, in an attempt to accommodate Muslim religious burial rituals, the Parliament 
adopted  Law  75/2010  on  Discharge  from  Hospitals  or  Morgues  of  Deceased  Muslims.102 
Law 75/2010 adapts the current provisions on hospitalisation and discharge from hospitals 
and  from  morgues  of  deceased  persons  to  Islamic  tenets.  In  order  to  observe  religious 
prescriptions,  Law  75/2010  provides  in  Article  1  that  in  the  case  of  a  deceased  person 
belonging to and practising the Muslim religion, upon the request of the family, the corpse 
is  discharged  within  24  hours  of  establishment  of  death,  and  in  accordance  with  Law 
104/2003  regarding  the  handling  of  human  corpses  and  removal  of  organs  and  tissues 
from  corpses  for  transplant.  The  Ministry  of  Health  had  30  days  to  propose  adequate 
amendments  to  the  Methodological  Norms  for  the  Implementation  of  Law  104/2003 
regarding the handling of human corpses and removal of organs and tissues from corpses 
for transplant, approved in Governmental Decision 451/2004. 

g) 

Accessibility of services, buildings and infrastructure  

In  Romania,  although  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  does  not  require  services  available  to 
the public, buildings and infrastructure to be designed and built in a way which provides 
accessibility  for  persons  with  disabilities,  in  Article  10  it  sanctions  as  discrimination  the 
denial of access to services and facilities. The wording of Article 10 can also be interpreted 
as applicable in cases of de facto denial of access to facilities and services caused by lack 
of  the  appropriate  infrastructure  to  ensure  accessibility.  A  2011  decision  of  the  NCCD, 
Decision 365 of 14 September 2011, NCCD and L Rausch v. S.C. Elaine S.R.L. (owner of 
the Heaven Club in Timişoara), cited in Section 2.5(b) above, also discusses the obligation 
of services provided to the public to be accessible for persons with disabilities. 

Law 448/2006 on the promotion and protection of the rights of persons with a  handicap 
(disability) provides for an obligation to ensure access to public buildings (including private 
buildings in the ownership of the state) and to local administration facilities, and for the 
duty  to  take  measures  to  ensure  access  (Articles  62-63(3)).  The  sanction  for  failing  to 

100   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Decision M.E.R. v. dr. PG and Mayoralty of V., 17 October 2007. 

101  Iordache, R. (2007), ‘The New Romanian Law on Religious Denominations and Religious Freedom: High 

Expectations, Sober Returns’, Institut für Rechtsphilosophie, Religions- und Kulturrecht 
Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Universität Wien, November 2007. 

102  Romania, Law 75/2010 on Discharge from Hospitals or Morgues of Deceased Muslims, 6 May 2010. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
observe this duty is a fine in the range of EUR 750-2 250 (RON 3 000-9 000), which was 
initially determined by the NAPH103 and is currently determined by the General Department 
for Social Inspection (Direcţia Generalǎ pentru Inspecţie Socialǎ).  

The law also provides for access to transport services. Article 64 of Law 448/2006 provides 
for  an  obligation  for  local  public  authorities  to  gradually  adapt  all  public  means  of 
transportation (by 31 December 2010) and to adapt all stations for public transportation. 
The sanction for failing to observe this duty is a fine in the range of EUR 750-2 250 (RON 
3 000-9 000). The authority responsible for identifying and sanctioning such cases is the 
NAPH.104 The norm was repealed and updated in February 2013 by ministerial order with 
the  aim  of  securing  adaptation  of  urban  buildings  to  accommodate  the  requirements  of 
persons with disabilities.105 

In  Romania,  national  law  does  not  contain  a  general  duty  to  provide  accessibility  by 
anticipation in any field for people with disabilities. However, a 2010 decision of the NCCD 
suggests  the  pro-active  approach  of  the  institution  and  its  understanding  that  securing 
accessibility involves taking measures by anticipation to adapt services to the requirements 
of persons with disabilities.106 The complainant (R.V.) was a person with visual impairments 
for  whom  the  disability  assessment  commission  agreed  that  he  can  live  independently 
without requiring a personal assistant. He approached the defendant, a bank, to open a 
bank account and to have a debit card issued. The bank  made opening the account and 
issuing the card to R.V. conditional either on appointing a proxy or on signing a statement 
assuming  liability  for  all  the  consequences  of  transactions.  The  NCCD  found  that 
discrimination occurred and issued a recommendation for the bank to adequately consider 
the specificities of its clients and adapt its services to ensure their accessibility, irrespective 
of the type of disability. The NCCD stated that ‘the bank should have considered that it 
does  not,  in  fact,  have  to  adapt  its  services  because  the  degree  of  autonomy  of  the 
complainant, the possibility to dispose of his financial resources without a proxy, his own 
abilities to operate computer programmes and applications on his own computer, which is 
adapted to his visual impairment. The only measures the bank needed to adapt in this case 
were to provide the contract and the confidential code in Braille, a measure that is adapted 
for  persons  with  visual  impairments.  Such  a  requirement  could  not  be  considered 
disproportionate or unjustified for the defendant in relation to a person with a handicap of 
visual nature (terms used by the NCCD). Fulfilling rights for the benefit of a category of 
people imply not only legal measures, but also practical actions with the aim of ensuring 
equal opportunities in accessing services.’ 

Following an ex officio investigation regarding the accessibility of public transportation in 
the capital cities of all the counties in Romania, in its Decision 251 of 30 April 2014, the 
NCCD sanctioned 39 mayors of major cities in Romania, as well as the relevant national 
authority – the National Agency for Payments and Social Inspection.107 In this decision, the 
NCCD  found  that  failure  to  ensure  access  to  public  transportation  for  persons  with 
disabilities amounted to direct discrimination by limiting access to services and  that this 
infringed  the  right  to  dignity.  Subsequently,  the  NCCD  imposed  fines  ranging  between 

103   Romania, Law 448/2006 on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Persons with a Handicap, 6 

December 2006, Art. 100. 

104  Romania, Law 448/2006 on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Persons with a Handicap, 6 

December 2006, Art. 100. 

105  Romania, Order 189/2013 of the vice-prime minister, minister of regional development, updating rule NP-

051/2001 in order to adapt civil buildings and the urban space around them for the purposes of 
accommodating persons with handicap (disabilities) (Ordin nr.189 din 12 februarie 2013 al viceprim-
ministrului, ministrul dezvoltării regionale şi administraţiei publice, pentru aprobarea reglementării tehnice 
"Normativ privind adaptarea clădirilor civile şi spaţiului urban la nevoile individuale ale persoanelor cu 
handicap, indicativ NP 051-2012 - Revizuire NP 051/2000). 

106  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Decision 128 , 6 May 2010, R.V. v. Banca Transilvania and Agentia Grand Constanta. 

107  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Decision 251, 30 April 2014, ex officio case against 39 mayors and the National Agency for 
Payments and Social Inspection.  

52 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
approximately EUR 227 (RON 1 000) and approximately EUR 454 (RON 2 000) on the 39 
mayors and a fine of approximately EUR 1 135 (RON 5 000) on the National Agency for 
Payments  and  Social  Inspection,  which  is  the  entity  with  the  legal  obligation  to  enforce 
observance of the legal provisions on ensuring access to local transportation for persons 
with disabilities. The decision was challenged before the Pitești Court of Appeal (Curtea de 
Apel Pitești) and the Alba Court of Appeal (Curtea de Apel Alba) by three mayors who were 
sanctioned by the NCCD. The first, the mayor of Pitești, who was sanctioned with a fine of 
approximately EUR 227 (RON 1 000), argued that the legal provisions do not establish an 
obligation to equip all means of public transportation so that they are accessible and that 
instead, the legal requirement is to ensure the possibility of access to public transportation 
to  persons  with  disabilities.  The  second  complainant,  the  mayor  of  Bistrița,  who  was 
sanctioned  with  a  fine  of  approximately  EUR  454  (RON  2 000),  challenged  the  NCCD 
decision, arguing that, given the mandate of a mayor according to current legislation, he 
could  not  be  held  liable  and  adding  that  the  interest  of  his  municipality  in  securing  the 
rights of persons with disabilities is proved by the fact that relevant provisions are included 
in the procurement documentation and contracts concluded by the public transport service. 
The third, the mayor of Alba, also argued that the management of the public transportation 
system  had  been  delegated,  hence  he  was  not  liable,  and  that  the  NCCD  decision  was 
taken after the statutory term included in the Law and that, given that 37 of the 77 means 
of public transportation were accessible, the duty to ensure accessibility was complied with. 

Both courts of appeal rejected the arguments invoking the lack of liability of the mayors, 
indicating that Law 215/2001 on local public administration clearly establishes the mandate 
of the mayor, including attributions regarding public services provided to citizens. The court 
dismissed the action of the three mayors, highlighting that eight years after the adoption 
of the law which creates the legal duty, even the complainants recognise that they met the 
obligation only in part. The Pitești Court notes that  ‘for the complainants, observing this 
obligation  does  not  entail  investments,  and  it  is  merely  an  obligation  of  diligence  with 
regard to negotiating contracts for transportation, and there is already a precedent in other 
cities’. The court concluded that as long as the mayors did not meet their legal obligation 
to  establish  the  ‘conditions  for  accessibility,  transportation,  infrastructure,  networks  of 
communication  for  medical  and  socio-medical  services’  as  required  by  Article  9  of  Law 
448/2006, the sanction applied by the NCCD was lawful, as well as the recommendations 
it provided for the future. The two courts rejected the petitions of the mayors and upheld 
the NCCD decision.108 

h) 

Accessibility of public documents  

The  Anti-discrimination  Law  and  Law  448/2006  on  the  promotion  and  protection  of  the 
rights of persons with a handicap (disability) do not include any provision on a duty for 
public services to provide translations for people with disabilities. Law 448/2006, Article 61 
mentions as specific measures to be taken by the authorities ‘assurance of access to the 
public information for disabled persons’ as well as ‘assurance of authorized interpreters of 
the mimic and gesture  language and of the language specific to deaf-blind persons’. No 
sanctions are provided for the failure to adopt such specific measures.109 A draft code of 
conduct proposed by NGOs in November 2013 mentions the need to ensure participation 
and  transparency  by  increasing  accessibility  of  public  documents  but  this  was  not 
adopted.110 

108  Decisions available from the courts or the NCCD. Information regarding the cases available at 
http://portal.just.ro/46/SitePages/Dosar.aspx?id_dosar=4600000000035053&id_inst=46.  

109  Romania, Law 448/2006 on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Persons with a Handicap, 6 

December 2006. 

110  Code of conduct for consultation of NGOs by public institutions (Cod de conduită privind consultarea ONG de 

către instituții publice) developed within the project ‚Model participativ de elaborare a politicii publice 
nationale privind ONG in Romania’, cod SMIS 40543, este derulat in parteneriat de catre AID-ONG si 
CENTRAS si este cofinanţat din Fondul Social European prin Programul Operaţional Dezvoltarea Capacităţii 
Administrative 2007-2013 Inovaţie in administratie, available at: http://www.forum-ong.ro/wp-
content/uploads/2013/12/Cod_Conduita_Consultare_ONG.pdf. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3  PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE  

3.1  Personal scope 

3.1.1  EU  and  non-EU  nationals  (Recital  13  and  Article  3(2)  Directive  2000/43 

and Recital 12 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/78) 

In Romania, there are no residence, citizenship or nationality requirements for protection 
under  the  relevant  national  laws  transposing  the  directives.  Article  1(2)  of  the  Anti-
discrimination Law guarantees the principle of equality among citizens and provides for the 
prohibition of discrimination in the same context. A limitation is triggered by the constraints 
of  Article  1(3)  of  the  Romanian  Constitution,  which  guarantees  fundamental  rights  in 
relation to citizens only. However, the comprehensive definition of discrimination provided 
in Article 2(1) of the Anti-discrimination Law does not include any residence, citizenship or 
nationality requirements to qualify for protection, as also proved by the case law of the 
NCCD.111 

3.1.2  Protection against discrimination (Recital 16 Directive 2000/43) 

a) 

Natural and legal persons 

In  Romania,  the  personal  scope  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  covers  natural  and  legal 
persons for the purpose of protection against discrimination. 

Article 3 of the Anti-discrimination Law specifies that all public and private natural or legal 
persons have an obligation to observe the principles of Article 1(2). Article 26(2) provides 
that sanctions can also be enforced against legal persons.  Article 26 provides for higher 
fines  for  discrimination  perpetrated  against  groups  or  communities  thus:  the  amount  of 
the  fine  as  modified  in  2013  is  within  the  range  of  approximately  EUR  250-7 500  (RON 
1 000-30 000) if the victim is an individual, and within the range of EUR 500-25 000 (RON 
2 000-100 000)  if  the  victims  are  a  group  or  a  community.112  Furthermore,  the  Anti-
discrimination  Law  establishes  an  obligation  for  ‘legal  representatives  of  authorities  and 
public  institutions  and  of  the  economic  agents  under  investigation,  as  well  as  natural 
persons to: 

a) 

b) 

c) 
d) 

‘provide  any  document  that  might  help  in  clarifying  the  objectives  of  the 
investigation; 
provide  information  and  explanations  verbally  or  in  writing,  in  relation  to  the 
issue under investigation; 
provide copies of the documents requested; 
provide support and ensure adequate conditions for carrying out the control  
help out in view of clarifications.’ 

and 

In Romania, the personal scope of anti-discrimination law covers natural and legal persons 
for  the  purpose  of  liability  for  discrimination.  Article  3  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Law 
specifies  that  the  law  applies  to  all  public  and  private  natural  or  legal  persons  with 
mandates regarding: 

a) 

b) 

conditions of hiring, criteria and conditions for recruitment, selection and promotion, 
access to all forms and  levels of orientation, training and professional development; 
social protection and security; 

111   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Case no. 221, 21 September 2005, D. v. N. and Şofronea swimming pool, in which the victim 
of discrimination was an Egyptian national. 

112   Romania, Law 189/2013 for the ratification of Emergency Ordinance 19/2013 for the amendment of the 

Government Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of 
discrimination, 25 June 2013, Art. 26. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
c) 
d) 
e) 
f) 
g) 

public services and other services, access to goods and facilities; 
educational system; 
ensuring freedom of movement; 
ensuring public order; 
other fields of social life. 

b) 

Private and public sector including public bodies 

In  Romania,  the  personal  scope  of  national  law  covers  the  private  and  public  sectors, 
including public bodies, for the purpose of protection against discrimination. Article 26 of 
the Anti-discrimination Law provides for differentiated sanctions depending on whether the 
victim is a group or an individual.113 

In Romania, according to Article 3 of the Anti-discrimination Law,  the personal scope  of 
anti-discrimination law covers private and public sectors, including public bodies, for the 
purpose of liability for discrimination according to Article 3 of the Anti-discrimination Law.  

3.2  Material scope 

3.2.1  Employment, self-employment and occupation  

In Romania, national legislation applies to all sectors  of private and public employment, 
self-employment  and  occupation,  including  contract  work,  self-employment,  military 
service, holding statutory office, for all the protected grounds. Articles 5-8 of the Romanian 
Anti-discrimination  Law,  which  prohibit  the  various  aspects  of  discrimination  in 
employment relations, do not distinguish between the different types of actors (public or 
private, civilian or military, secular or religious): 

‘Art. 5 – According to the ordinance herein, conditioning the participation of a person 
in an economic activity or the freely chosen exercise of a profession on  grounds of 
belonging  to  a  race,  nationality,  ethnic  group,  religion,  social  category,  on  beliefs, 
gender  or  sexual  orientation,  age  or  on  belonging  to  a  disadvantaged  group  shall 
constitute a contravention.’114 

Art. 6 –According to the ordinance herein, the following constitute contraventions: 
discrimination in  relation  to  employment  and  social  protection  on  grounds  of  race, 
nationality,  ethnic  group,  religion,  social  status  or  belonging  to  a  disadvantaged 
group, beliefs, age, gender or sexual orientation, excepting the cases provided for by 
the law, with respect to: 

a) 

b) 
c) 
d) 
e) 
f) 
g) 

initiation,  suspension,  modification  or  termination  of  the  employment 
relationship; 
establishing and modifying job-related duties, the place of work or wages; 
granting of social rights other than wages; 
professional training, refresher training, conversion training or promotion; 
enforcement of disciplinary measures; 
right to join a trade union and to access to the facilities it ensures; 
any other conditions related to carrying out a job, in accordance with the law 
in force. 

Art. 7 - (1) In accordance with the ordinance herein, the refusal of any legal or natural 
person to employ a person on grounds of the applicant’s race, nationality, belonging 
to  an  ethnic  group,  religion,  or  disadvantaged  group,  social  status,  beliefs,  age, 

113  According to Article 26 of the Anti-Discrimination Law,  the amount of the fine as modified in 2013 is within 
the range of approximately EUR 250-7 500 (RON 1 000-30 000) if the victim is an individual, and within the 
range of EUR 500-25 000 (RON 2 000-100 000) if the victims are a group or a community. 

114  Unofficial translation. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
gender  or  sexual  orientation  shall  constitute  a  contravention,  excepting  the  cases 
specified by the law. 
(2)  If,  in  any  job  advertisement  or  interview,  an  employer  or  employer’s 
representative sets conditions for appointment to a position related to an applicant 
belonging to a race, nationality, ethnic group, religion, or disadvantaged group, or to 
the social status, age, gender, sexual orientation or beliefs of the applicant, , except 
for  the  situation  provided  for  under  Art.  2  paragraph  9,  this  shall  constitute  a 
contravention. 
(3)  Natural  or  legal  persons  involved  in  mediating  and  distributing  positions  of 
employment  shall  ensure  equal  treatment  of  all  applicants,  their  free  and  equal 
access to opportunities to consult the supply and demand of the labour market, to 
consult on opportunities to obtain a job or a qualification, and shall refuse to support 
any discriminatory requirements on the part of employers. All information related to 
the  race,  nationality,  membership  of  an  ethnic  group,  religion,  gender  or  sexual 
orientation  of  applicants  for  a  job  or  any  other  private  information  shall  be 
confidential. 

Art. 8 - Discrimination in regard to social benefits provided to employees committed 
by  employers  against  their  employees  on  grounds  of  their  belonging  to  a  race, 
nationality, ethnic group, religion, social category or disadvantaged group, or their 
age,  gender,  social  status,  sexual  orientation  or  beliefs  shall  constitute  a 
contravention.’ 

Articles 5-8 of the Anti-discrimination Law fail to mention disability specifically as one of 
the  protected  grounds  in  relation  to  employment.  However,  cases  of  discrimination  on 
grounds  of  disability  have  been  sanctioned  by  the  NCCD,  which  applied  the  general 
definition of discrimination in Article 2, which also lists disability as a prohibited ground.  

The Labour Code amended and republished in 2011 and in force since May 2011, provides 
for a specific prohibition of discrimination in relation to employment relations, in Article 5: 

1) 

2) 

3) 

4) 

in employment relations the principle of equal treatment in relation to all employees 
and employers applies; 
any  direct  or  indirect  discrimination  against  an  employee  on  grounds  of  gender, 
sexual  orientation,  genetic  characteristics,  age,  nationality,  race,  colour,  ethnicity, 
religion,  political  beliefs,  social  origin,  handicap  (disability),  family  situation  or 
responsibility, membership of or activity in a trade union is prohibited; 
direct discrimination consists in exclusion, difference, restriction or preference, based 
on  one  or  more  grounds  provided  for  in  para  (2),  which  have  the  purpose  or  the 
effect of not granting, limiting or denying the recognition, use or exercise of the rights 
provided for in the labour legislation; 
indirect  discrimination  consists  in  acts  or  facts  which  in  appearance  are  based  on 
other criteria than those provided for in para. (2), but which generate the effects of 
direct discrimination.115 

Furthermore, Article 59 of the Labour Code prohibits dismissal of employees: 

a) 

b) 

on  grounds  of  gender,  sexual  orientation,  genetic  characteristics,  age,  nationality, 
race,  colour,  ethnicity,  religion,  political  beliefs,  social  origin,  handicap(disability), 
family situation or responsibility, membership or activity in a trade union; 
for  exercising,  according  to  the  law,  the  right  to  strike  and  trade-union  related 
rights.116 

115  Romania, Law 40/2011 for amending and completing Law 53.2003, the Labour Code, (Legea nr. 40/2011 

pentru modificarea si completarea Legii nr. 53/2003) 31 March 2011. 

116  Romania, Law 40/2011 for amending and completing Law 53.2003, the Labour Code, (Legea nr. 40/2011 

pentru modificarea si completarea Legii nr. 53/2003), 31 March 2011, Art. 59. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
There  is  no  jurisprudence  available  to  indicate  whether  the  labour  courts  interpret  the 
prohibition  of  discrimination  on  grounds  of  religion  strictly  as  belonging  to  a  state-
recognised  religious  faith  or  to  a  religious  association  duly  registered  according  to  Law 
489/2006  or  in  the  light  of  the  understanding  promoted  in  the  jurisprudence  of  the 
European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  which  has  also  been  referred  to  by  the  Romanian 
Constitutional Court in its decisions.117 

While discrimination is prohibited, the Labour Code does not offer guidance in the case of 
employees dismissed or sanctioned when they are not available or competent to do their 
job  due  to  a  family  situation  or  disability  and  no  labour  law  jurisprudence  on  this  issue 
could be identified. 

The  new  Criminal  Code,  adopted  in  2009,  which  entered  into  force  in  February  2014, 
sanctions  under  Article  297  (on  abuse  in  the  exercise  of  authority)  the  action  of  a  civil 
servant who during the course of work-related duties, limits the exercise of a  right of a 
person or creates a situation of inferiority for that person on grounds of age, nationality, 
ethnicity,  language,  religion,  gender,  sexual  orientation,  opinion,  political  membership, 
beliefs, wealth, social origin, age, handicap (disability), non-contagious chronic disease or 
HIV/AIDS, which is punishable with  a term of imprisonment of  from two to  seven  years 
and exclusion from holding a public position. 

3.2.2  Conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, 
including  selection  criteria,  recruitment  conditions  and  promotion, 
whatever  the  branch  of  activity  and  at  all  levels  of  the  professional 
hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a))  

In  Romania,  national  legislation  includes  conditions  for  access  to  employment  or  to 
occupation,  including  selection  criteria,  recruitment  conditions  and  promotion,  whatever 
the branch of activity and at all levels of the professional hierarchy for the five grounds in 
both private and public sectors, as described in the directives. 

The Anti-discrimination Law prohibits discrimination in relation to employment of any type 
and  on  grounds  of  race,  nationality,  ethnic  group,  religion,  social  status,  beliefs,  sex  or 
sexual  orientation,  age  and  belonging  to  a  disadvantaged  group,  including  in  selection 
criteria, recruitment conditions, treatment during employment relationships and promotion 
or  professional  training  or  other  benefits,  as  well  as  in  terminating  employment 
relationships.  Articles  5-8  do  not  specifically  mention  self-employment:  however,  the 
wording is general enough to allow the NCCD and the courts to interpret the concept ‘work 
relationship’ as including ‘self-employment.’ Nevertheless, judicial clarification is needed. 

In practice, the NCCD has also applied these provisions to different treatment in relation 
to access to the profession and professional development, in the case of resident doctors 
who graduated in different years. In its decision of 27 July 2006, in the case of G.T. v. the 
Ministry of Health, the NCCD sanctioned as discriminatory Order 1.000/2005 of the Ministry 
of Health, which established that in the case of graduates of medical schools who graduated 
in 2005, access to continuing professional studies as resident doctors in the area of general 
practice can be given on the basis of a request subject to meeting a minimal set of criteria, 
while graduates from other years from the same faculties did not have access to the same 
procedure.  The  NCCD  noted  that  Order  1.000/2005  established  different  treatment  for 
graduates of medical schools from different years and this resulted in differences in their 
enjoyment of the right to professional development.118 

Conditions for access to employment and criteria for various professional activities in the 
public  sector  are  mostly  determined  by  law.  This  means  that  following  decisions  of  the 

117  Romania, Constitutional Court (Curtea Constituţională), Decision 72, 18 July 1995. 
118  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Decision in G.T. v. the Ministry of Health, 27 July 2006. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Romanian Constitutional Court which declared that the courts are not mandated to repeal 
legal provisions when deemed as conducive to discrimination (Decisions 818, 819 and 820 
of  2008)  and  decisions  finding  that  the  mandate  of  the  national  equality  body  is 
unconstitutional  in  cases  of  petitions  filed  in  relation  to  discrimination  triggered  or 
embedded in legislative norms (Decision 997/2008), there is a de facto difference between 
the  public  and  the  private  sectors  in  relation  to  the  justiciability  of  discrimination  in 
conditions for access to employment. In addition, following this line of jurisprudence, the 
national  equality  body  (NCCD),  faced  with  legal  provisions  incompatible  with  the  anti-
discrimination  principle,  does  not  have  a  mechanism  allowing  it  to  decline  to  apply  that 
particular legal provision, as provided by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) 
in C-555/07 Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co. KG. of 19 January 2010, while the 
national  courts  cannot  repeal  the  discriminatory  norm  but  can  raise  an  exception  of 
unconstitutionality before the Constitutional Court. 

3.2.3  Employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissals (Article 

3(1)(c)) 

In Romania, national legislation includes working conditions, including pay and dismissal, 
for all five grounds and for both private and public employment, as specifically mentioned 
by the Anti-discrimination Law in Articles 5-8. 

The  lists  of  grounds  from  Articles  5,  6  and  7  would  be  read  as  including  all  grounds 
protected by Romanian legislation, including disability, which is not specifically mentioned. 
The NCCD has confirmed this interpretation in its jurisprudence. 

 

Occupational pensions constituting part of pay 

There are no specific provisions in the Anti-discrimination Law prohibiting discrimination in 
respect  of  occupational  pensions  but  the  law  provides  for  specific  sanctions  in  cases  of 
discrimination in relation to salary-related  rights as  well as in relation to granting social 
rights other than salary-related rights. 

The  Law  on the Unitary System  of Pensions,  replacing Law 19/2000  and adopted on 16 
December 2010, maintains the principle of equality in Article 2 d), without including further 
details on prohibition of discrimination or any sanctions in this regard.119 

Law 204/2006120 on Optional Pension Schemes provides in Article 51 that ‘all participants 
and beneficiaries to a private pension scheme have the same rights and obligations and 
are  treated  without  discrimination …  they  have  the  right  to  equal  treatment …’ 
Article 51 (4) provides: 

‘No eligible person can be discriminated against or denied the right to join a pension 
fund.’ 

Law 204/2006 does not include any sanction in regard to the prohibition of discrimination 
in respect of optional pension schemes. 

3.2.4  Access  to  all  types  and  to  all  levels  of  vocational  guidance,  vocational 
training,  advanced  vocational  training  and  retraining,  including  practical 
work experience (Article 3(1)(b)) 

In  Romania,  national  legislation  applies  to  vocational  training  outside  the  employment 
relationship, such as that provided by technical schools or universities, or by adult lifelong 
learning courses.  

119  Romania, Law 263/2010 on the Unitary System of Pensions, 16 December 2010. 
120  Romania, Law 204/2006 on Optional Pensions Schemes 22 May 2006. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Though  not  expressly  using  the  wording  of  Article  3(1)(b)  of  Directive  2000/43/EC,  the 
Anti-discrimination Law mentions specific prohibitions against discrimination in access to 
vocational  guidance,  professional  training,  continuing  professional  training  and  practical 
work, both in the section on  access to  work in Article 6 and in the section on access to 
education  in  Article  11,  which  does  not  distinguish  between  the  different  forms,  types, 
stages or levels of education: 

‘Art. 11 (1) Under the ordinance herein, denying the access of a person or of a group 
of  persons  to  the  state-owned  or  private  education  system  of  any  kind,  degree  or 
level, on account of their belonging to a race, nationality, ethnic group, religion, social 
category or to a disadvantaged category, on account of their beliefs, age, gender or 
sexual orientation, shall constitute an contravention. 

(2) The provisions of the paragraph above shall be applicable to all stages and levels 
of  education,  including  admission  or  enrolment  in  education  institutions  and  the 
assessment and examination of students’ knowledge. 
… 
(4) The provisions under paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) shall not be interpreted as a 
restriction of the right of an education institution to deny the application of a person 
whose knowledge and/or prior results do not meet the required admission standards 
of that institution, as long as the refusal is not determined by the person’s belonging 
to a race, nationality, ethnic group, religion, social category or to a disadvantaged 
category, by his/her beliefs, age, gender or sexual orientation. 
... 
(6) According to the ordinance herein, any restrictions based on belonging to a race, 
nationality, ethnic group, religion, social category or to a disadvantaged category in 
the establishment and licensing of education institutions set up in accordance with 
the legal framework in force shall constitute an contravention.’ 

Though specifically provided for, training is not defined in the law and it is for future judicial 
interpretation to establish the meaning of the concept.  

The  lists  of  grounds  in  Article  6  and  Article  11  would  be  read  as  including  all  grounds 
protected  by  Romanian  legislation,  including  disability,  although  this  is  not  specifically 
mentioned  given  the  correlation  with  Article  2.1  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  which 
includes the open list of protected criteria. 

3.2.5  Membership  of,  and  involvement  in,  an  organisation  of  workers  or 
employers,  or  any  organisation  whose  members  carry  on  a  particular 
profession,  including  the  benefits  provided  for  by  such  organisations 
(Article 3(1)(d)) 

In Romania, national legislation includes membership of, and involvement in workers’ or 
employers’ organisations as formulated in the directives for all five grounds and for both 
private  and  public  employment.  Article 6 f)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  mentions  the 
right to join a trade union and to access to the facilities it ensures. 

The  lists  of  grounds  in  Article  6  should  be  read  as  including  all  grounds  protected  by 
Romanian  legislation,  including  disability,  which  is  not  specifically  mentioned.  Further 
protection was ensured in the 2011 legislation on social dialogue121 and in the Labour Code, 
both of which clearly spell out prohibition of dismissal of employees due to their exercise 
of the right to strike and of their rights related to their trade union activities – Art. 59 b) 
of the Labour Code.122 

121  Romania, Law 54 /2003 Trade Unions Law, 24 January 2004, had been abrogated and replaced by Art. 224 

of Romania, Law 62/2011 on Social Dialogue, 10 May 2011. 

122  Romania, Law 40/2011 for amending and completing Law 53.2003, the Labour Code (Legea nr. 40/2011 

pentru modificarea si completarea Legii nr. 53/2003), 31 March 2011. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.6  Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 3(1)(e) 

Directive 2000/43) 

In  Romania,  national  legislation  includes  social  protection,  including  social  security  and 
healthcare, as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive. Protection against discrimination 
in social protection is provided for, both in connection with employment relationships and 
in  general  in  relation  to  all  grounds.  Article  6  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  prohibiting 
discrimination mentions: 

‘c)  granting of social rights other than the wages; 
... 
g) 
the law in force. 

any other conditions related to the carry out [sic] of a job, in accordance with 

Art. 8 - Discrimination committed by employers against their employees with regard 
to  the  social  facilities  they  grant  their  employees  on  account  of  the  employees’ 
belonging to a race, nationality, ethnic origin, religion, social status or disadvantaged 
group, age, gender, sexual orientation or beliefs shall constitute an contravention.’ 

More specific provisions on prohibition of discrimination in social services and health care 
services are listed in Art. 10 (a) of the Anti-discrimination Law, which states: 

‘Under the ordinance herein, the following deeds shall constitute a contravention, if 
the deed does not fall under the incidence of criminal law, when perpetrated against 
a  person  or  a  group  on  account  of  their  belonging  or  to  the  belonging  of  the 
management  to  a  race,  nationality,  ethnic  group,  religion,  social  category  or 
disadvantaged group, on account of their beliefs, age, gender or sexual orientation: 

a) 
b) 

h)  

the refusal to ensure legal and administrative public services. 
denying the access of a person or of a group of persons to public health services 
(choice of a family doctor, medical assistance, health insurance, first aid and 
rescue services or other health services). 
... 
the refusal to ensure rights and benefits to a person or to a group of persons.’ 

The lists of grounds in Articles 6, 7 and 8 would be read as including all grounds protected 
by  Romanian  legislation,  including  disability,  although  this  is  not  specifically  mentioned. 
Judicial interpretation is required to confirm the inclusive approach of the NCCD. 

 

Article 3.3 exception 

The Romanian legislation does not include any exemptions for payments of any kind made 
by state schemes or similar, including state social security or social protection schemes, 
relying on the exception allowed in Article 3(3) of Directive 2000/78/EC. 

3.2.7  Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) 

In  Romania,  national  legislation  includes  social  advantages  as  formulated  in  the  Racial 
Equality Directive. The Anti-discrimination Law prohibits discrimination in granting social 
advantages in Article 6 and in Article 8, without distinguishing between the different types 
of benefits and social advantages private or public actors might grant to their employees: 

c) 

g) 

‘granting of social rights other than the wages; 
... 
any other conditions related to the carry out of a job, in accordance with the 
law in force. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Art. 8 - Discrimination committed by employers against their employees with regard 
to  the  social  facilities  they  grant  their  employees  on  account  of  the  employees’ 
belonging to a race, nationality, ethnic origin, religion, social status or disadvantaged 
group, age, gender, sexual orientation or beliefs shall constitute an contravention.’ 

A  general  prohibition  of  discrimination  in  the  context  of  access  to  public  services  of  an 
administrative and legal nature, health and other services, goods and facilities is set out in 
Article 10(h) of the Anti-discrimination Law thus: 

‘Under the ordinance herein, the following deeds shall constitute a contravention, if 
the deed does not fall under the incidence of criminal law, when perpetrated against 
a  person  or  a  group  on  account  of  their  belonging  or  to  the  belonging  of  the 
management  to  a  race,  nationality,  ethnic  group,  religion,  social  category  or 
disadvantaged group, on account of their beliefs, age, gender or sexual orientation: 

(h) refusal to grant the rights or benefits to a person or a group of persons.’ 

Though not specifically mentioned, disability would also be a protected ground in regard to 
access to services, interpreted under the general concept of ‘disadvantaged group’ and in 
light  of  the  general  definition  of  discrimination  in  Article  2(1),  which  lists  disability  as  a 
protected ground. Judicial interpretation is required to confirm this inclusive approach. 

In Romania, the lack of definition of social advantages in the Anti-discrimination Law does 
not raise problems as suggested by the practice of the NCCD. 

3.2.8  Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) 

In  Romania,  national  legislation  includes  education  as  formulated  in  the  Racial  Equality 
Directive.  Article  11  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  substantiates  the  prohibition  of 
discrimination in education, at all levels and in all forms, both private and public:  

‘(1)  Under  the  ordinance  herein,  denying  the  access  of  a  person  or  of  a  group  of 
persons to the state-owned or private education system of any kind, degree or level, 
on  account  of  their  belonging  to  a  race,  nationality,  ethnic  group,  religion,  social 
category  or  to  a  disadvantaged  group,  on  account  of  their  beliefs,  age,  gender  or 
sexual orientation, shall constitute a contravention. 
(2) The provisions of the paragraph above shall be applicable to all stages and levels 
of  education,  including  admission  or  enrolment  in  education  institutions  and  the 
assessment and examination of students’ knowledge. 
(3) Under the ordinance herein, requiring a declaration to prove a person’s or group’s 
belonging to an ethnic group as a condition for access to education in their mother 
tongue  shall  constitute  a  contravention.  The  exception  to  the  rule  is  the  situation 
when the candidates apply in the secondary and higher education system for places 
allotted  specifically  to  a  certain  minority,  in  which  case  they  must  prove  their 
belonging to that minority by means of a document issued by a legally established 
organisation of the respective minority. 
(4) The provisions under paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) shall not be interpreted as a 
restriction of the right of an education institution to deny the application of a person 
whose knowledge and/or prior results do not meet the required admission standards 
of that institution, as long as the refusal is not determined by the person’s belonging 
to a race, nationality, ethnic group, religion, social category or to a disadvantaged 
group, by his/her beliefs, age, gender or sexual orientation. 
(5)  The  provisions  under  paragraphs  (1)  and  (2)  shall  not  be  interpreted  as  a 
restriction of the right of education institutions that train religious personnel in view 
of  being  employed  in  worship  places  to  deny  the  application  of  a  person  whose 
religious  status  does  not  meet  the  requirements  established  for  access  to  the 
respective institution. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(6) According to the ordinance herein, any restrictions based on belonging to a race, 
nationality, ethnic group, religion, social category or to a disadvantaged group in the 
establishment and licensing of education institutions set up in accordance with the 
legal framework in force shall constitute a contravention.’ 

Not specifically mentioned in Article 11 but also protected are disability and age, though 
judicial interpretation is required to confirm this inclusive approach, which the NCCD has 
so far adopted. 

The requirement in Article 11(3) has been interpreted as a certificate or letter issued by a 
legally established non-governmental organisation of the respective minority or containing 
in  its  by-laws  a  declaration  of  its  interest  in  working  on  behalf  of  a  particular  minority 
group. 

The NCCD has applied the provisions of Article 11 in the context of segregation and denial 
of  access  to  education  cases,  particularly  in  regard  to  Roma  children  and  children  and 
young people living with HIV/AIDS. 

In  a  2012  case,  the  NCCD  established  segregation  of  Roma  children,  in  the  form  of 
assigning them to one class during enrolment and providing a classroom with significantly 
poorer conditions for Roma pupils, and sanctioned the school with a fine of approximately 
EUR 460 (RON 2 000)  and  the school inspectorate with  a fine of EUR  460 (RON 2 000). 
The NCCD also required the school inspectorate to desegregate the school and to monitor 
the activities of the school. Based on its investigation, the NCCD concluded that ‘the system 
of assignment to class 1B is not transparent and that the criteria for assigning the children 
to one class or another, even if they seem neutral, have a discriminatory effect in relation 
to  children  belonging  to  a  vulnerable  category,  without  being  objectively  justified  by  a 
legitimate scope.’ The NCCD refers to ECtHR jurisprudence and continues by highlighting 
the  positive  obligation  of  the  school  leadership  ‘to  make  sure  that  pupils  from  a 
disadvantaged  ethnic  group  are  not  segregated  in  one  classroom …  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
educational personnel to assign the children in classes in a proportional manner, without 
taking into considerations criteria (such as the choice of the parents) which might infringe 
the rights of the pupils as well as their dignity.’123 

In a case initiated ex officio following an article in the newspaper Gândul under the headline 
‘La  Glina,  ţiganii  sunt  exilaţi  în  clasele  lor’  [In  Glina  Gypsies  are  exiled  in  their  own 
classrooms], the NCCD decided in its case file 22A Bis/2006, that the situation of de facto 
segregation amounted to direct discrimination under Article 11 of the Anti-discrimination 
Law  and  sanctioned  Glina  school  with  an  administrative  warning.124  In  its  decision,  the 
NCCD mentioned the ECtHR jurisprudence on Article 14, highlighting that in finding that 
discrimination occurred it must be established that persons in analogous and comparable 
situations  receive  preferential  treatment  and  that  this  distinction  does  not  have  an 
objective and reasonable justification, citing Fredin v. Sweden, Hoffman v. Austria, Spadea 
and Scalambrino v. Italy and Stubbings and others v. U.K. as well as the jurisprudence of 
the  Romanian  Constitutional  Court  and  the  relevant  standards  set  out  in  the  UNESCO 
Convention against Discrimination in Education, ICERD General Recommendation XXVII, 
Recommendation  4/2000  of  the  Council  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe,  ECRI 
Recommendation no. 3. The case file 22A Bis/2006 predated the  ECtHR Grand Chamber 
decision in D.H. and Others v. Czech Republic (13 November 2007) and does not reflect 

123  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării) 

Decision 559, file 52-2012, 12 December 2012. 

124   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), file 22A Bis/2006, 27 August 2007, Glina segregation case. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the  findings  of  the  ECtHR  in  that  case.  Similarly,  the  NCCD  found  against  schools 
segregating Roma pupils in a series of cases, mainly brought by a Roma NGO.125 

In regard to segregation in education, the Romanian Ministry of Education adopted Order 
no.  1540/2007  on  Banning  School  Segregation  of  Roma  Children  and  on  Approving  the 
Methodology on Preventing and Eliminating School Segregation of Roma Children. Order 
no. 1540/2007 is intended to prevent, ban and  eliminate  segregation, seen as  a severe 
form of discrimination with negative consequences on equal access of children to quality 
education. It includes sanctions for those who do not observe its provisions. 

In 2010, the Ministry of Education issued Notification 28463 regarding Segregation of Roma 
in Education, which regulates the prevention and elimination of segregation of Roma pre-
school  and  primary  and  secondary  school  pupils  in  the  educational  system.126  This 
Notification is an internal norm intended for school inspectorates, kindergarten and school 
headmasters, as well as teachers, to specifically deal with the prevention and elimination 
of  segregation  of  Roma  pre-school  and  primary  and  secondary  school  pupils  in  the 
educational system. The Notification also includes some measures regarding education in 
minority languages. 

Notification 28463 of 3 March 2010 was triggered by complaints received by the Ministry 
of  Education  regarding  tendencies  to  segregate  Roma  pupils  or  attempts  to  interrupt 
education in minority languages. This notification includes very specific recommendations 
regarding registration of Roma pupils in the education system, reconfiguration of classes 
to avoid segregation of Roma pupils, maintenance of  education in the mother tongue of 
pupils  or  of  classes  teaching  their  mother  tongue  as  well  as  classes  on  the  history  and 
traditions of minorities, maintenance of the positions of school mediators who are engaged 
to support Roma pupils, mandatory inclusion of all children aged between 6 and 16 years 
in the educational system, including through alternative forms of education. 

Notification  28463/2010  does  not  mention  specific  sanctions  for  non-observance  of  the 
recommendations; the Labour Code provisions would, however, be applicable. It mentions 
that compliance with the requirements of the notification will be monitored on a permanent 
basis  by  school  inspectors  in  charge  of  the  educational  problems  of  Roma/minorities, 
together  with  the  school  inspectors  responsible  for  pre-school,  primary  school  and 
secondary school education. There is no official information regarding the actual monitoring 
and evaluation of enforcement of the notification. 

The Law on National Education, Law 1/2011, provides in Article 2(4) that the state ‘grants 
equal  rights  of  access  to  all levels  and  forms  of  pre-university  and  higher  education,  as 
well as lifelong learning, for all citizens of Romania, without any form of discrimination’.127 
Thus, the previous prohibition of discrimination regardless of ‘race, nationality, ethnicity, 

125  Romani CRISS filed a complaint with the NCCD on 25 January 2007 regarding the differentiated treatment 
applied to Roma pupils in Dumbrăveni by separating them from the majority pupils in grades 1 to 8 and 
moving them from the local Theoretical High School to a special school. According to Romani CRISS, over 
90 % of the students in the special school are Roma, and they are transferred to special schools because 
they fail to obtain pass grades in the mainstream school, and not because they have special needs. Roma 
parents claim that their children fail because they are seated at the back of the classroom, and the teachers 
do not pay due attention to them. Available at: http://www.romanicriss.org. In a similar case, on 07 
February 2007, Romani CRISS filed a complaint with the NCCD reporting on discrimination against Roma 
children in 3rd, 4th and 6th grades in School no. 17, and 1st, 3rd and 4th grades in School no. 19, both in 
Craiova, Dolj County. These children are allegedly segregated from majority students because their parents 
enrol them late. Roma parents state that the teachers physically abuse their children and the educational 
provision is of poorer quality than that received by the majority students in the same school. The NCCD 
issued a decision stating that discrimination occurred in these schools, and urging the school to initiate a 
desegregation process. 

126  Romania, Ministry of Education, Research, Youth and Sports, Notification 28463/2010, available at 

http://www.edu.ro/index.php/legaldocs/13466. 

127  Romania, Law 1/2011 on National Education (Legea Educaţiei Naţionale), 10 January 2011. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
language,  religion,  social  category,  beliefs,  sex,  sexual  orientation,  age,  disability,  non-
contagious chronic disease, HIV status, belonging to a vulnerable group category as well 
as any other criterion’ mentioned in Article 9 of the previous draft was replaced by a more 
vague  principle  of  equity  defined  as  absence  of  discrimination  in  general  in  access  to 
education. Only discrimination in tertiary education is expressly prohibited, in Article 118 
and in Article 202. 

While the previous 1995 Education Law128 defined segregation in education in Article 5(48) 
and in Article 8, these definitions were omitted from the current law.129 In Article 3, the 
Law  on  National  Education  provides  as  a  defining  principle  ‘the  recognition  and  the 
guarantee  of  rights  of  persons  belonging  to  national  minorities,  the  right  to  preserve, 
develop and express ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity’ as well as the principle 
of  ‘ensuring  equal  opportunities’.  Notably,  Article  50  provides  that  ‘abusive  diagnostic 
assessment of children based on criteria of race, nationality, ethnicity, language, belonging 
to a disadvantaged category, or any other criterion, which leads to their inclusion in special 
education  needs  groups,  shall  be  punished’.  However,  there  are  no  specific  sanctions 
included in the law. 

 

Pupils with disabilities 

In  Romania,  the  general  approach  to  education  for  pupils  with  disabilities  does  raise 
problems, as the inclusive legal framework is not matched by effective measures to ensure 
inclusive  education  of  pupils  with  disabilities.  Most  of  these  pupils  remain  in  special 
educational  units  and  attempts  to  advocate  the  principle  of  normalisation  are  met  with 
resistance from the authorities and educational personnel. 

Education of pupils and students with disabilities is accommodated according to the  Law 
on National Education and the special legislation on the rights of persons with disabilities. 
Article 15 of Law 448/2006 on special protection for persons with disabilities guarantees 
the right to education of children with disabilities (without distinguishing between different 
types or categories of disability) in the form chosen by the child, or the child’s parents or 
guardians.130  Article  15(2)  guarantees  the  right  to  permanent  education  and  continuing 
education of persons with disabilities.  

According to Article 16, education can be accessed in one of the following forms: 

a) 
b) 
c) 
d) 
e) 

special educational units; 
individual integration in regular educational institutions; 
special groups or classes within regular educational institutions; 
educational services through visiting teachers; 
home schooling up to the end of high school studies but not later than the age of 26 
years; 

128  Education Law 84 of 1995, published as amended by Law 151/1999, republished in Monitorul Oficial, No. 

370/August 3, 1999. 

129  The draft 2009 Education Code which was declared unconstitutional for procedural flaws defined segregation 

in education in Art. 5(48) as ‘a serious type of discrimination consisting in physical separation, with or 
without intention, of minority children and youth from the rest of the children and youth, in groups, classes, 
buildings, educational institutions and other accommodation facilities used for education, so that the 
percentage of minority children and youth out of the total of children/youth in that particular educational 
institution/ classroom/ group is disproportionate when compared to the percentage of minority children and 
youth of that particular age out of the total population of the same age in that particular administrative-
territorial unit (village or city).’ The Code added in Art. 8 that ‘the organizing, functioning and content of 
education cannot be structured based on exclusivist, segregationist and discriminatory criteria on grounds of 
ideology, politics, religion or ethnicity’ and in Art. 8(6) specifically prohibited segregation without providing 
for a specific sanction. ‘Organizing the educational process so that to allow teaching of mother tongue 
and/or other/all courses in mother tongue, as well as similar cases expressly provided in the law, are not 
considered as segregation.’  

130  Romania, Law 448/2006 on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Persons with a Handicap, 

6 December 2006, Art. 17. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
f) 
g) 

education in hospital, during hospitalisation; 
educational alternatives. 

The 2011 Law on National Education sets out in Articles 48-56 provisions for special and 
integrated  education.  Special  education  can  be  organised  in  special  schools  and  in 
mainstream schools which integrate special groups or individual students in mainstream 
groups. As a novelty, Article 50 of the law provides for the following measure.  ‘Abusive 
diagnostic assessment of children based on criteria of race, nationality, ethnicity, language, 
belonging to a disadvantaged category, or any other criterion, which leads to their inclusion 
in special education needs groups, shall be punished.’ However, no specific sanctions are 
provided. 

The Law on National Education fails to address the issue of children dropping out as a result 
of  discrimination  and  harassment  on  grounds  of  disability.  While  it  establishes  fines  for 
parents who fail to ensure that their children go to school, it does not include any sanction 
for  harassment  which  induces  children  to  drop  out.  In  addition,  the  Law  on  National 
Education does not provide for sanctions for schools or school inspectorates which refuse 
to create appropriate schooling solutions for children. 

Integration  and  equal  opportunities  in  social  life  are  recognised  as  critical  needs  in 
subsequent legislation. Thus, the Law on the protection and promotion of the rights of the 
child establishes an ‘obligation for central and local public authorities to initiate projects 
and provide the funding to develop services targeted to satisfy the needs of children with 
disabilities in conditions observing their dignity, autonomy and active participation in the 
life of the community.’131 There is no subsequent legislation further defining this obligation 
and the mechanism for its implementation. The case law and the NGO reports indicate that 
the problem remains with the implementation of the legal framework in order to ensure 
inclusive education.132 

Law  272/2004  on  the  protection  of  the  rights  of  the  child  mentions  that  ‘the  child  with 
disabilities  has  the  right  to  education,  recuperation,  compensation,  rehabilitation  and 
integration,  adapted  to  the  own  possibilities,  in  view  of  his  or  her  personality.’133  Law 
272/2004  fails  to  provide  any  implementation  mechanism  which  would  allow  its 
enforceability. 

In the particular case of children living with HIV/AIDS, their right to education is provided 
for in Article 3 of  Law  584/2002, the framework law for the protection of persons living 
with HIV/AIDS, which states that ‘persons infected with HIV or living with AIDS are entitled 
to  social  protection  and  non-discriminatory  treatment  in  regard  of  their  right  to 
education.’134  Law  584/2002  does  not  include  any  enforcement  mechanism  or  related 
sanctions. 

In a 2013 decision, the NCCD sanctioned discrimination perpetrated by a school against a 
child  with  Asperger  syndrome.  Following  protests  from  parents  of  other  children,  school 
officials  started  to  put  heavy  pressure  on  the  child  and his  parents  to  transfer  him  to  a 
different class.135 In its decision, the NCCD assessed each of the defences invoked by the 

131  Romania, Law 272/2004 on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of the Child, 21 June 2004, 

Art. 46 4. 

132  European Centre for the Rights of Children with Disabilities, July 2013, report available at: 

http://www.cedcd.ro/. 

133  Romania, Law 272/2004 on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of the Child, 21 June 2004, 

Art. 46 2. 

134  Romania, Law No. 584/2002 on Measures to Prevent the Spread of AIDS in Romania and to Protect Persons 
Infected with HIV or Suffering from AIDS (Legea nr. 584/2002 privind masurile de prevenire a raspandirii 
maladiei SIDA in Romania si de protectie a persoanelor infectate cu HIV sau bolnave de SIDA), 29 
September 2002, Art. 3. 

135  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării) 

Decision 6444, 30 October 2013. 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
defendant, concluding that the justifications were not objective and were not legitimate. 
Consequently, the NCCD found a violation of Article 2(1) – direct discrimination, Article 11 
–  discrimination  in  education,  Article  2(5)  –  harassment  and  Article  15  –  discrimination 
affecting the right to dignity, of the Anti-discrimination Law  and sanctioned the school with 
a  fine  of  approximately  EUR  220  (RON  1 000).  The  NCCD  also  recommended  that  the 
school inform the parents of other children regarding the decision and in future it should 
not  to  accede  to  pressure  from  other  parents  regarding  exclusion  of  children  with 
disabilities from classrooms. 

In a 2009 decision, the NCCD sanctioned with a fine of EURO 125 (RON 600) the initiative 
by a teacher to collect signatures with the purpose of excluding a pupil from a class because 
of  disability.  This  was  deemed  as  discrimination  affecting  the  right  to  education  and  in 
addition to the fine, the NCCD issued a warning and recommended ‘initiating courses for 
the educational personnel of the school on topics such as respect for human rights and the 
principle of equality to prevent such cases in the future’.136 

 

Trends and patterns regarding Roma pupils 

In  Romania,  specific  patterns  exist  in  education  in  regard  to  Roma  pupils,  such  as 
segregation and poorer quality education for Roma children.  

Segregation of Roma pupils remains a problem, as  evidenced by  research  supported by 
UNICEF in 2011, which found that almost 60 % of Roma children who attend pre-school 
education go to segregated  kindergartens (that is, where over 50 %  of the children are 
Roma), and 11.7 % of Roma children are in all-Roma kindergarten groups. The 2010 study, 
produced by Agenţia de Dezvoltarea Comunitară Împreună for UNICEF, found that more 
than  70 %  of  the  pupils  who  drop  out  from  schools  are  Roma  and  the  causes  for  their 
leaving the educational system are poverty, as well as the poor quality of education and 
the lack of human and material resources in educational institutions.137 

3.2.9  Access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services  which  are  available  to  the 

public (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) 

In  Romania,  national  legislation  includes  access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services  as 
formulated in the Racial Equality Directive. Article 10 of the Anti-discrimination Law lists 
the  different  types  of  services  and  goods.  This  Law  does  not  distinguish  between  goods 
and  services  available  to  the  public  and  those  which  are  private.  Article  3  of  the  Anti-
discrimination  Law  specifies  that  the  provisions  of  the  Law  apply  to  natural  and  legal 
persons,  both  public  and  private,  as  well  as  public  institutions,  including  in  the  field  of 
services in general, and access to goods and services (Article 3 c)). 

The  2013  amendments  repealed  the  initial  exceptions  from  the  prohibition  of 
discrimination, which departed from the directives. The general prohibition is now set out 
without exceptions: 

Art. 10:  ‘Under  the  ordinance  herein,  the  following  deeds  shall  constitute  a 
contravention,  if  the  deed  does  not  fall  under  the  incidence  of  criminal  law,  when 
perpetrated  against  a  person  or  a  group  on  account  of  their  belonging  or  to  the 
belonging  of  the  management  to  a  race,  nationality,  ethnic  group,  religion,  social 
category or disadvantaged group, on account of their beliefs, age, gender or sexual 
orientation: 

136  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării) 

Decision 101, 17 February 2009. 

137  Ivasiuc, A, Duminică, G (2010), O şcoală pentru toţi? Accesul copiilor romi la o educaţie de calitate [A 

School for Everybody? Access of Roma children to quality education], București, Vanemonde. The research 
used a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach and was carried out in April 2009-May 2010. The report 
is available at: http://www.agentiaimpreuna.ro/files/O_scoala_pentru_toti.pdf. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the refusal to ensure legal and administrative public services; 

a)  
b)   denying the access of a person or of a group of persons to public health services 
(choice of a family doctor, medical assistance, health insurance, first aid and 
rescue services or other health services); 

… 
d)  
e)   denying of access for a person or a group to services offered by theatres, movie 

the refusal to grant a bank credit or to conclude any other kind of contract; 

f)  

g) 

theatres, libraries, museums, exhibitions; 
denying of access for a person or a group to services offered by stores, hotels, 
restaurants,  pubs,  discos  or  any  kind  of  service  provider,  whether  private  or 
public; 
denying  of  access  for  a  person  or  a  group  to  services  provided  for  by  public 
transportation companies – plane, ship, train, subway, bus, trolley, tram, cab, 
or any other means of transportation; 

(h)   refusal to grant the rights or benefits to a person or a group of persons.’ 

Though disability is not specifically listed as a protected ground in Article 10, it should be 
granted  protection  based  on  the  general  list  of  protected  criteria  in  Article  2(1)  and  as 
being covered by the general term ‘disadvantaged group’. Judicial interpretation is required 
to confirm this inclusive approach already endorsed by the NCCD. 

 

Distinction between goods and services available publicly or privately 

In Romania, national law does not distinguish between goods and services available to the 
public (e.g. in shops, restaurants, banks) and those only available privately (e.g. limited 
to members of a private association). 

3.2.10  Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) 

In  Romania,  national  legislation  includes  housing  as  formulated  in  the  Racial  Equality 
Directive. The Anti-discrimination Law covers selling as well as renting a plot of land or a 
building for housing purposes, as well as illegal forced evictions and deportations on any 
of  the  grounds  protected.  However,  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  does  not  specifically 
prohibit  segregation,  as  proved  by  a  2011  NCCD  case  which  attracted  a  lot  of  media 
attention. In penalising the erection of a  wall segregating Roma social housing from the 
rest of the city of Baia Mare, the NCCD had to rely on the prohibition of harassment and 
on the right to dignity as protected by the Anti-discrimination Law.138 

The  2013  amendments  to  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  repealed  the  exceptions  which 
infringed  the  provisions  of  Directive  2000/43/EC,  where  such  a  restriction  is  objectively 
justified  by  a  legitimate  purpose  and  the  methods  used  to  achieve  such  a  purpose  are 
adequate and necessary.139 The Law currently provides:  

‘Art. 10:  Under  the  ordinance  herein,  the  following  deeds  shall  constitute  a 
contravention,  if  the  deed  does  not  fall  under  the  incidence  of  criminal  law,  when 
perpetrated  against  a  person  or  a  group  on  account  of  their  belonging  or  to  the 
belonging  of  the  management  to  a  race,  nationality,  ethnic  group,  religion,  social 
category or disadvantaged group, on account of their beliefs, age, gender or sexual 
orientation: 
... 
(c)  the  refusal  to  sell  or  rent  a  plot  of  land  or  building  for  housing 
purposes.’ 

138  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării) 

Decision 439 in file no. 4A/2011, 15 November 2011, ex officio case v. Cătălin Cherecheş.  

139  Romania, Law 189/2013 for the ratification of Emergency Ordinance 19/2013 for the amendment of 

Government Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of 
discrimination, 25 June 2013. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
‘Art. 12 - (1) Any threats, pressure, constraints, use of force or any other means of 
assimilation, deportation or colonisation of persons with the purpose to modify the 
ethnic,  racial  or  social  composition  of  a  region  or  of  a  locality  shall  constitute  a 
contravention. 
(2) According to the ordinance herein, any behaviour consisting in forcing a person 
belonging  to  a  race,  nationality,  ethnic  group  or  religion,  or  a  community, 
respectively, to unwillingly leave their residence, deportation or lowering their living 
standards  with  a  view  to  determine  them  to  leave  their  traditional  residence  shall 
constitute  a  contravention.  Forcing  a  group  of  persons  belonging  to  a  minority  to 
leave the area or regions where they live or forcing a group belonging to the majority 
population to settle in areas or regions inhabited by a population belonging to national 
minorities shall both represent violations of the ordinance herein. 

Art. 13 - (1) Any behaviour aiming to force a person or group of persons to move 
away from a building or neighbourhood or aiming to chase them away on account of 
their belonging to a race, nationality, ethnic group, religion, social category or to a 
disadvantaged  category,  on  account  of  their  beliefs,  age,  gender  or  sexual 
orientation, shall constitute a contravention.’ 

The Anti-discrimination Law does not provide explicitly for disability as a protected ground 
in relation to housing. As the NCCD approach to the list of protected grounds  has so far 
been inclusive, this approach needs to be  confirmed through judicial interpretation. Law 
448/2006 on the rights of persons with disabilities provides for preferential access to public 
housing  for  persons  with  disabilities  in  Article  20  and  according  to  Art.  20(2),  persons 
certified with a serious disability can receive a supplementary room and pay a minimal rent 
when  granted  public  housing.  However,  no  data  are  available  to  assess  the  level  of 
implementation of these provisions. In 2009, the Parliament adopted a  law providing for 
exemptions from paying rent for public housing or housing provided by county authorities 
which is used by persons with a serious disability.140  

 

Trends and patterns regarding housing segregation for Roma 

In Romania, there are patterns of housing segregation and discrimination against Roma.  

The Housing Law (Law 114/1996) does not mention any prohibition of discrimination in the 
area of housing.141 Roma are not expressly mentioned as one of the social groups entitled 
to  social  housing  provided  for  in  Articles  42-43  of  the  Housing  Law,  which  is  raising 
concerns of indirect discrimination given the dire  situation of the large number of Roma 
whose housing needs are ignored.142  

The 2002 National Action Plan on Social Inclusion143 mentions housing as one of the priority 
lines and includes Roma as a particularly vulnerable group, without effectively following up 
in this direction. Roma are not explicitly mentioned as a vulnerable group in the Law for 

140  Romania, Law 359/2009 providing for exemptions for paying rent for public housing or housing provided by 

county authorities which are used by persons with a serious disability, 20 November 2009. 

141  Romania, Housing Law, Law. 114/1996, republished, 11 October 1996. 
142  Art. 43 of the Housing Law provides for the beneficiaries as decided by local authorities according to 

annually established criteria, and in the order of priority as established by the law they can be: persons and 
families evicted, or who are to be evicted from houses returned to former owners, young people up to 35 
years old, young people leaving social protection institutions who have turned 18, people with physical 
disabilities of degree I and II, ‘handicapped’ persons, pensioners, war veterans and widows, the 
beneficiaries of the Law 341/2004 for the recognition of martyr-heroes and fighters who have contributed to 
the victory of the Romanian revolution from December 1989 as well as of the persons who have sacrificed 
their life and have suffered as a consequence of the workers’ anti-Communist revolt of Brasov 1987 and of 
Law 118/1990 (persons who have suffered for political reasons during Communism), and other persons or 
families which might be entitled to the right to housing. 

143  Romania, Government Decision for the approval of the National Plan Against Poverty and for Promoting 

Social Inclusion, 31 July 2002.  

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Preventing  and  Combating  Social  Marginalisation.144  In  its  2009  report  Risks  and  Social 
Inequities  in  Romania,  the  Presidential  Commission  for  the  Analysis  of  Social  and 
Demographic  Risks  identified  the increased  vulnerability  of  Roma  in  relation  to  housing, 
and provided data indicating the dire situation, but there was no policy or legislative follow-
up to these findings.145 

There  are  no  official  statistics  on  racist  incidents  and  discrimination  in  housing  against 
Roma; the media and NGOs report cases of institutional violence against and assaults on 
Roma,  such  as  police  raids  and  evictions  in  Roma  communities,  without  providing  them 
with alternative accommodation. A report prepared by the Centre for Legal Resources in 
2009 found that ‘the first and only Government driven and funded initiative in the area of 
housing  for  the  Roma  came  in  2008  through  Government  Decision  1237/2008  which 
provided  for  the  building  of  a  maximum  of  300  houses  for  the  Roma.’146  The  report 
produced an analysis of patterns affecting the right to housing of Roma communities and 
concluded that, given the lack of clear guarantees against forced evictions and the tedious 
legal regime applicable to buildings and housing in Romanian legislation, Roma are victims 
of indirect discrimination.  

The high levels of urban private rents and the deficit of social housing, as well as the high 
cost of public utilities, disproportionately affect Roma and the main cases of discrimination 
(evictions,  demolitions,  spatial  segregation)  are  concentrated  at  the  level  of  Roma 
communities.  

A 2011 report issued by Amnesty International, Romania: Mind the legal gap: Roma and 
the right to housing in Romania, concludes that the Roma minority in Romania lacks legal 
protection  from  forced  evictions,  and  that  Roma  families  are  often  left  in  sub-standard 
housing conditions with no chance of redress.147 The report identifies gaps in protection of 
the right to housing and highlights that ‘remedies available under the existing legislation 
for evictions are mainly available to tenants or owners and do not adequately cover other 
groups of people, such as people living on public land’. Further, the report argues that ‘the 
Romanian government has so far failed to introduce an effective system that would hold 
local  authorities  accountable  for  non-compliance  with  human  rights  treaties  to  which 
Romania  is  a  state  party’  and  concludes  that  even  if  the  courts  or  the  national  equality 
body should provide Roma with a means of redress, these systems lack the power to hold 
the Government accountable. 

144  Romania, Law 116/2002, Law for Preventing and Combating Social Marginalisation, 21 March 2002. 
145  Presidential Commission for the Analysis of Social and Demographic Risks, Riscuri şi inechităţi sociale în 

România – Risks and social inequities in Romania, available at: 
http://www.presidency.ro/?_RID=det&tb=date&id=11426&_PRID=. 

146  Romania, RAXEN National Focal Point (2009), Thematic Study Housing Conditions of Roma and  
Travellers, March 2009, p. 4, available at: http://www.crj.ro/userfiles/editor/files/RAXEN-Roma%20Housing-

Romania_en.pdf. 

147  Amnesty International (2011), Romania: Mind the legal gap: Roma and the right to housing in Romania, 

London, Amnesty International, 23 June 2011. Report available at: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-
updates/report/romania-legal-system-condemning-roma-poor-housing-2011-06-23. 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4  EXCEPTIONS 

4.1  Genuine and determining occupational requirements (Article 4) 

In  Romania,  national  legislation  provides  for  an  exception  for  genuine  and  determining 
occupational requirements. The 2013 amendments to the Anti-discrimination Law repealed 
the  previous  definition  of  occupational  requirements  in  Article  9  and  introduced  a  new 
Article 41 stating:  

‘The difference in treatment based on a characteristic which is linked to the criteria 
provided for in Art. 2(1) does not amount to discrimination when, based on the nature 
of  the  occupational  activities  or  of  the  context  in  which  they  take  place,  such  a 
characteristic  amounts  to  a  genuine  and  determining  occupational  requirement, 
under  the  condition  that  the  objective  is  legitimate  and  the  requirement  is 
proportionate.’ 

As  the  grounds  covered  by  the  Romanian  Anti-discrimination  Law  are  broader  than  the 
protected  grounds  of  the  two  directives,  the  differences  of  treatment  in  cases  of 
determining occupational requirements apply not only for the five grounds mentioned in 
the directives, but for all protected grounds. 

4.2  Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) Directive 

2000/78) 

 

Exception for employers with an ethos based on religion or belief 

In  Romania,  the  national  Anti-discrimination  Law  does  not  provide  for  an  exception  for 
employers  with  an  ethos  based  on  religion  or  belief.  Lacking  relevant  jurisprudence 
developed  either  by  the  courts  or  by  the  NCCD  in  application  of  genuine  occupational 
requirements as exceptions for ethos- or religion-based associations, it is still too early to 
assess  the  tests  used  in  analysing  the  conditions  under  which  these  exceptions  will  be 
accepted. 

relations  within  state-recognised 

Law 489/2006 on Religious Freedom and the General Status of Religious Denominations 
includes  provisions  on  employment 
religious 
denominations.148 Law 489/2006 established a three-tier system with traditional religious 
denominations being granted the status of state-recognised religious denominations (culte) 
under very strict requirements, religious associations (asociaţii religioase)149 and religious 
groups (grupuri religioase) which do not meet the strict criteria established by the law or 
choose not to register as legal persons.150 According to Articles 23-26 of Law 489/2006, 
state-recognised  religious  denominations  have  the  right  to  select,  appoint,  employ  and 
discipline  their  own  employees,  a  practice  already  in  force  in  2000  when  the  Anti-
discrimination Law was adopted.  Issues  of internal discipline are  resolved in accordance 
with  by-laws  and  internal  provisions  by  the  religious  courts  of  each  denomination. 
Theoretically,  the  legal  regime  established  in  this  chapter  in  relation  only  to  religious 
personnel of recognised denominations could be extended to religious personnel of other 
entities  the  ethos  of  which  is  based  on  religion  or  belief  (such  as  registered  religious 
associations),  in  accordance  with  the  legal  principle  that  where  the  reason  behind  a 

148  The 2006 Law on religious freedom and the general status of religious denominations recognises the same 

18 religions that were recognised prior to its adoption. 

149  Art. 40 of Law 489/2006 provides that entities seeking registration as religious associations have to reach a 
higher threshold than other types of association (at least 300 members exclusively Romanian citizens or 
residents in Romania while secular not-for-profit associations need at least three members). 

150   Romania, Law 489/2006 on Religious Freedom and the General Status of Religious Denominations (Legea 

nr. 489/2006 privind libertatea religioasa si regimul general al cultelor), 28. December 2007. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
normative provision is the same, the norm applied should accordingly be the same. There 
is no reported jurisprudence developed in this field so far. 

 

Religious institutions affecting employment in state funded entities 

In  Romania,  religious  institutions  are  permitted  to  select  people  (on  the  basis  of  their 
religion)  to  employ  or  to  dismiss  from  a  job  when  that  job  is  in  a  state  entity,  or  in  an 
entity financed by the state. Law 1/2011 on National Education151 maintains that religion 
is a subject for primary and secondary and vocational education in the case of the 18 state-
recognised religions, and is guaranteed irrespective of the number of pupils willing to take 
the subject. In November 2014, the Constitutional Court found that Article 18 of the Law 
on National Education, establishing the procedure according to which the parents or the 
legal guardian of a pupil could file a written request so that the pupil would not take the 
class, was unconstitutional but maintained the constitutionality of religion classes offered 
as part of the general curricula.152  

Only  the  18  state-recognised  religious  denominations  can  sign  partnerships  with  the 
Ministry  of  Education  to  secure  teaching  of  religion  classes  as  requested  by  pupils,  a 
mechanism  which  has  been  contested  in  the  past.  The  confessional  model  of  teaching 
religion has a negative impact on the legal regime applicable to teaching personnel which 
is de facto in a dual relation of subordination, as it has to observe both internal religious 
norms and the general provisions on educational personnel.153 

The 2011 Law on National Education does not include provisions on the right of a state-
recognised  religious  denomination  to  select,  appoint  or  dismiss  teachers  of  religion. 
However, the Law on religious freedom and the general status of religious denominations 
provides  in  Article  32 (2)-(4)  that  state-recognised  denominations  have  wide  powers  in 
training, selecting, approving and dismissing the teaching personnel for religion classes as 
follows: 

1) 

the staff teaching religion in public schools shall be appointed in agreement with the 
denomination they represent, under the law; 

2)  where a teacher commits serious violations of a denomination’s doctrine or morals, 
that denomination can withdraw its agreement that the teacher teach religion, which 
will lead to termination of that person’s employment contract; 
on request, in a situation where a school cannot provide teachers of religion who are 
members of the same denomination as the students to be taught, such students can 
produce evidence of studies in their respective religion, provided by the denomination 
of which they are members. 

3) 

The  wide  competency  of  state-recognised  denominations  in  selecting,  approving  or 
dismissing  educational  personnel  teaching  religion  classes  conflicts  with  the  principles 
established  by  the  Labour  Code  and  by  Law  128/1997  on  the  Status  of  Educational 
Personnel  and  arbitrarily  places  the  educational  personnel  teaching  religion  classes  in  a 
burdensome situation. So far, neither the NCCD nor the courts have reported any cases of 
complaints from teachers of religion dismissed from their positions in public schools after 
not being deemed acceptable due to infringement of doctrinal requirements (e.g.: divorce 
in the case of Catholic education, single mothers or people living in consensual relations or 
homosexuality in the case of Orthodox education, women not willing to wear the hijab in 
the case of teaching Islam). 

151   Romania, Law 1/2011 on National Education (Legea Educaţiei Naţionale), 10 January 2011. 
152  Romania, Constitutional Court (Curtea Constituţională) Decision 669, 12 November 2014. All decisions of 

the Constitutional Court are available for research by decision number on the search engine of the Court at 
http://www.ccr.ro/ccrSearch/MainSearch/SearchForm.aspx. 

153  Enache, S. (coord.) (2007), Promovarea interesului superior al copilului în educaţia religioasă. Monitorizarea 

educaţiei religioase în şcolile publice din România, Târgu-Mureş, Editura Pro Europa, available at 
http://www.proeuropa.ro/norme_si_practici.html#juridic. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4) 

The Law on the Status of Educational Personnel, Law 128/1997, provides in Art. 136 
the  conditions  for  employment  of  teachers  of  religion,  on  the  basis  of  agreements 
between  the  Ministry  of  Education  and  the  18  state-recognised  religions  (no  other 
religious denominations). 

Such  agreements  concluded  under  domestic  law  provide  for  the  structure  of  religious 
education, including the requirements for teachers of religion. The law allows for religious 
personnel who have graduated from higher religious education or theology seminaries have 
work  experience  of  at  least  five  years  in  the  field  to  teach  religion  for  primary  and 
secondary education classes; such personnel would be paid by the Ministry of Education 
as teachers, subject to  the requirement  to pass an exam, as  established by the  Law on 
National Education. 

4.3  Armed  forces  and  other  specific  occupations  (Article  3(4)  and  Recital  18 

Directive 2000/78) 

In Romania, national legislation does not provide for an exception for the armed forces in 
relation to age or disability discrimination (Article 3(4), Directive 2000/78/EC). However, 
the  genuine  occupational  requirements  introduced  in  Article  41  replacing  the  former 
exceptions allowed by Article 9, which was repealed in 2013, can be invoked in relation to 
age and disability requirements for the armed forces, police, prison or emergency services: 

‘The difference in treatment based on a characteristic which is linked to the criteria 
provided for in Art. 2(1) does not amount to discrimination when, based on the nature 
of  the  occupational  activities  or  of  the  context  in  which  they  take  place,  such  a 
characteristic  amounts  to  a  genuine  and  determining  occupational  requirement, 
under  the  condition  that  the  objective  is  legitimate  and  the  requirement  is 
proportionate.’ 

Article 36 of Law 80/1995 on the Statute of Military Personnel includes an age limit in that 
it  mentions  that  qualify  to  become  active  officers:  ‘e)  active  military  sub-officers  (non-
commissioned officers NCOs), licensed graduates of higher tertiary education with a similar 
profile to the military units, who are maximum of 35 years old.’154 

According to Article 78(4) of Law 448/2006, national defence and public order institutions 
are exempt from the obligation for all authorities and public institutions, public or private 
legal persons with at least 50 employees to employ persons with disabilities at a level of 
at  least  4 %  of  the  total  number  of  employees.  An  absolute  exemption  such  as  that 
introduced by Article 78(4) is unjustified and might be challenged as unconstitutional. 

Order 665  of the Ministry  of  Interior  of 28  November  2008,  regarding human resources 
management in the units of the Ministry of Interior, mentions as a general condition only 
that the applicants must be at least 18 years  of age and be declared  ‘able’ by a special 
commission which examines medical, physical and psychological conditions. The maximum 
age for those participating in competitions for initial training as police officers is 42 years 
and for those who seek to participate in professional training for the army it is 28 years. 
Height-related criteria are also provided, for example a minimum of 1.70 metres for men 
and 1.65 metres for women. Order 665 also specifies that, depending on the particularities 
of a professional activity, specific recruitment criteria may be established. 

Law  360/2002  on  the  Statute  of  Policemen  provides  in  Article  10  that  for  the  entrance 
examinations  in  the  educational  units  of  the  Ministry  of  Interior  or  in  the  case  of  direct 
employment of specialists, any person who complies with the general requirements for civil 

154  Romania, Law 80/1995 on the Statute of the Military Personnel (Lege privind Statutul cadrelor militare), 11 

July 1995. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
servants and with other specific requirements listed in the law ‘has access, irrespective of 
race,  nationality,  gender,  religion,  wealth  or  social  origin’.155  Such  specific  requirements 
listed  by  Article  10  include  being  declared  ‘medically,  physically  and  psychologically 
able/fit’. Age is not mentioned in the list. 

4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) 

a)  Discrimination on the ground of nationality 

In Romania, national law does not include exceptions relating to difference of treatment 
based on nationality.  

In Romania, nationality (in the sense of citizenship) is explicitly mentioned as a protected 
ground  in  Article  2  of  the  national  Anti-discrimination  Law.  The  Anti-discrimination  Law 
establishes the right to freedom from discrimination on grounds of nationality in general, 
without further defining the concept of ‘nationality’ or listing exemptions. 

b) 

Relationship between ‘nationality’ and ‘race or ethnic origin’ 

As the Anti-discrimination Law and the case law do not provide any definition of ‘nationality’ 
or ‘race or ethnic origin’ it is impossible to assess how the NCCD uses these notions. In 
practice,  for  its  own  data-gathering  purposes,  the  NCCD  informally  categorises  under 
‘ethnic  origin’  all  cases  regarding  Roma,  under  ‘nationality’  cases  filed  by  any  of  the  18 
national minorities recognised under Romanian legislation as well as by other minorities or 
foreign citizens, and under ‘race’ cases lodged by persons of African or Asian descent, thus 
avoiding potential overlap. 

4.5  Work-related family benefits (Recital 22 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Benefits for married employees 

In Romania it would constitute unlawful discrimination in national law if an employer only 
provided  benefits  to  those  employees  who  are  married.  Romanian  legislation  does  not 
mention  any  specific  provision  on  the  right  of  employers  to  provide  benefits  solely  to  a 
certain  category  of  employees  (married,  with  children  etc.).  The  general  prohibition  in 
Article 6 and Article 8 of the Anti-discrimination Law would apply: 

‘Art. 6 –According to the ordinance herein, the following constitute contraventions: 
discrimination on account of the race, nationality, ethnic group, religion, social status 
or disadvantaged group one belongs to, respectively on account of one’s beliefs, age, 
gender or sexual orientation in a labour and social protection relation, excepting the 
cases provided for by the law, with respect to: 
... 
c) 
... 
Art. 8 - Discrimination committed by employers against their employees with regard 
to  the  social  facilities  they  grant  their  employees  on  account  of  the  employees’ 
belonging  to  a  race,  nationality,  ethnic  origin,  religion,  social  category  or 
disadvantaged group or age, gender, social status, sexual orientation or beliefs shall 
constitute a contravention.’ 

granting of social rights other than the wages; 

b) 

Benefits for employees with opposite-sex partners 

In  Romania,  it  is  impossible  to  conclude  if  it  would  constitute  unlawful  discrimination  in 
national law if an employer only provided benefits to those employees with opposite-sex 

155  Romania, Law 360/2002 on the Statute of the Policeman (Lege privind Statutul politistului), 6 June 2002. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
partners.  Notably, Romanian legislation did not include any legal provision on same-sex 
marriage or partnership until 2009, so private employers providing benefits on grounds of 
marriage could invoke the absence of a legal regulation.156 There is no legislation allowing 
same-sex or heterosexual partnerships. Due to the open-ended list of protected grounds, 
allowing the NCCD and the courts to define as protected groups heterosexual couples or 
same-sex partners, a decision to provide benefits limited to employees with opposite-sex 
partners  might  be  challenged  as  discriminatory.  No  case  law  has  been  reported  on  this 
issue so far. 

The new Civil Code, adopted in 2009,157 which entered into force in 2011, includes in Article 
277  an  express  prohibition  of  same-sex  partnership  and  marriage,  and  includes  a 
prohibition  of  recognition  of  partnerships  and  same-sex  marriages  registered  in  other 
countries, even if they were legally registered.158 The new Civil Code also mentions that 
the legal provisions on the freedom of movement in Romania of EU/EEA citizens remain in 
force.  These  include  Ordinance  30/2006,  which  includes  a  definition  of  partnership  for 
citizens of EU Member States for the purposes of free movement and residence in Romania 
which  defers  to  the  legislation  of  the  country  of  origin.159  However,  the  new  Civil  Code 
provisions fail to clarify the conflict between the express provisions recognising the marital 
status  of  the  EU  citizens  as  granted  by  their  countries  mentioned  in  the  legislation 
transposing  Directive  2004/38/EC  (i.e.  Ordinance  30/2006)  and  the  prohibition  of 
recognition  of  same-sex  marriages  or  partnerships  entered  into  abroad  by  same-sex 
couples introduced in the new Civil Code.160 

4.6  Health and safety (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Exceptions in relation to disability and health/safety 

In Romania, there are no specific exceptions in relation to disability and health and safety 
(Article  7(2),  Directive  2000/78/EC).  However,  the  genuine  occupational  requirement 
allowed by Article 41 might be applicable. 

4.7  Exceptions related to discrimination on the ground of age (Article 6 Directive 

2000/78) 

4.7.1  Direct discrimination 

In Romania, national law does not provide an exception for direct discrimination on age. 
However,  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  age  may  be  justified  under  Article  41  if  it 
corresponds  to  a  determining  occupational  requirement.  The  wording  of  the  test  is 
compliant  with  the  test  provided  by  Article  6  of  Directive  2000/78/EC,  although  its 
interpretation still needs confirmation from the courts. 

156  FRALEX. Legal Study on Homophobia and Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation – Romania, 
http://fra.europa.eu/en/country-report/2012/country-reports-homophobia-and-discrimination-grounds-
sexual-orientation-part-1. 

157  Romania, Law 289/2009 on the Civil Code (Lege 289/2009 privind Codul Civil), 17 July 2009. 
158  Romania, Law 289/2009 on the Civil Code (Lege 289/2009 privind Codul Civil), 17 July 2009, Art. 277. 

‘[S]ame-sex marriages performed abroad, by Romanian citizens or by foreigners are not to be recognised in 
Romania.’ Similarly, the new Civil Code mentions that same-sex or opposite-sex civil partnerships registered 
or contracted abroad by Romanian citizens or foreigners are not recognised in Romania. 

159  Romania, Law 500/2006 on amending and approving Ordinance 30/2006, 28 December 2006.  
160   Romania, Law 500/2006 on amending and approving Ordinance 30/2006, 28 December 2006, defines as a 

partner ‘a person who lives together with a citizen of the EU, if the partnership is registered according to the 
law of the Member State of origin or, when the partnership is not registered, the relationship can be 
proved’. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  provision  allowing  for  difference  in  treatment  in  the  area  of  housing  and  access  to 
services  and  access  to  goods,  including  on  the  ground  of  age,  under  the  specific  test 
established in Article 10 was repealed in 2013.161 

In  its  Decision  no.  42  of  9  January  2008,  file  498/2007,  in  the  case  F.K  v.  Ministerul 
Educaţiei,  Cercetării  şi  Tineretului  [Ministry  of  Education],  Inspectoratul  Şcolar  Judeţean 
M.  [M.  county  school  inspectorate],  the  NCCD  noted  that  the  refusal  to  allow  the 
complainant to participate in a competition for the position of school director because he 
had  less  than  four  years  left  before  reaching  the  pensionable  age  amounts  to 
discrimination.  The  refusal  was  based  on  an  Order  of  the  Ministry  of  Education162  which 
provided that ‘at the date of the competition, candidates should have an age at least four 
years less than the standard pensionable age’. The NCCD considered that the refusal to 
allow the complainant to participate in the competition for the position of school director 
was discriminatory and recommended the Ministry of Education to modify the criteria for 
competitions for the position of school director.163 

In  a  2006  decision,  I.N.  v.  Administraţia  Naţională  a  Penitenciarelor  [National 
Administration  for  Prisons],  the  NCCD  found  that  the  upper  age  limit  of  35  years 
established  for  taking  the  examination  to  become  of  a  prison  officer  was  discriminatory 
and recommended to the Ministry of Justice and to the National Administration of Prisons 
that they modify this requirement, in spite of claims from the authorities that a lower age 
was required in order to secure ‘dynamism, flexibility and optimism’.164 

 

Justification of direct discrimination on the ground of age 

In  Romania,  it  is  not  possible,  generally  or  in  specific  circumstances,  to  justify  direct 
discrimination on the ground of age. Discrimination on the ground of age might be justified 
according  to  Art.  41  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  if  it  qualifies  as  a  determining 
occupational requirement. 

a) 

Permitted differences of treatment based on age 

In Romania, national law does not permit differences of treatment based on age for any 
activities within the material scope of Directive 2000/78/EC. The Labour Code provides for 
specific  protective  measures  in  relation  to  employees  under  18  years  of  age,  who  must 
have a work programme of no more than six hours/day and 30 hours/week (former Article 
109,  renumbered  as  Article  112);  cannot  work  supplementary  hours  (Article  121, 
renumbered as Article 124) or during night shifts (Article 125, renumbered as Article 128); 
must have a lunch break of at least 30 minutes (Article 130, renumbered as Article 133); 
and have a supplementary holiday entitlement of three days (Article 142, renumbered as 
Article 147 (2)).165 

b)  Occupational pension schemes– fixed ages for admission or entitlements 

In Romania, national law allows occupational pension schemes to fix ages for admission to 
a  scheme  or  for  entitlement  to  benefits,  taking  up  the  possibility  provided  for  in  Article 

161  Romania, Law 189/2013 for the ratification of Emergency Ordinance 19/2013 for the amendment of the 

Government Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of 
discrimination, 25 June 2013. 

162  Romania, Ordinul Ministrului Educaţiei şi Cercetării nr. 5617, 14 November 2006. 
163  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Decision no. 42, file 498/2007, 9 January 2008, F.K. v. Ministerul Educaţiei, Cercetării şi 
Tineretului [Ministry of Education], Inspectoratul Şcolar Judeţean M. [M. county school inspectorate]. 

164   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Decision I.N. v. Administraţia Naţională a Penitenciarelor [National Administration of 
Penitentiaries], 11 May 2006. 

165  Romania, Labour Code (Codul Muncii), 24 January 2003, modified by Law 40/2011. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6(2). Law 411/2004 on private pensions makes participation in private pension schemes 
mandatory for people under 35 years of age. 

The special law on pensions, Law 19/2000 on the Public Pension System and Other Social 
Security  Rights,166  which  was  in  force  until  the  end  of  December  2010,  established  the 
general age for  retirement, which has progressively increased to reach the ceiling of 60 
years  for  women  and  65  years  for  men  by  2014.  This law  also  established  the  required 
number of years of contributions to the pension schemes (at least 30 years participation 
for women and 35 years for men). The law established a unified public pension system, 
integrating the majority of former independent systems; the only system left outside was 
the military pension system. 

Law  19/2000  was  replaced  by  Law  263/2010  on  the  Unitary  System  of  Pensions,  which 
entered  into  force  in  2011.167  The  initial  draft  of  this  law  was  challenged  because  of  its 
provision in Article 53(1), introducing an equal retirement age for men and women of 65 
years. The Constitutional Court upheld the draft in its decision of 6 October 2010 by stating 
that equalising the retirement age of men and women does not infringe the constitutional 
provisions  on  equality  and  that  opposing  such  equalisation  would  be  tantamount  to 
opposition to an international trend. However, the Romanian President later refused to sign 
the law and sent it back to the Parliament, stating that he could not agree with the equal 
retirement  age  of  65  years  for  both  men  and  women.  The  President  requested  the 
Parliament to consider introducing a differentiated retirement age of 63 years for women 
and 65 years for men, due to the socio-economic realities entailing a more difficult situation 
for women.168 Consequently, the Parliament adopted the Law on Unitary Pension System 
on 7 December 2010, including an amendment regarding the differential retirement age 
for men and women. However, the amendment did not introduce a differential period for 
contributions, as requested by the opposition parties. 

The Constitutional Court was approached once again by a group of parliamentarians who 
alleged potential discrimination between men and women due to the lack of a differentiated 
system  of  contributions  to  the  retirement  scheme,  leading  to  lower  net  pensions  for 
women.  On  15  December  2010,  the  Constitutional  Court  considered  the  constitutional 
complaints and decided to uphold the Law on Unitary Pensions System in its current form, 
including  the  differentiated  retirement  age  for  women  and  men,  as  proposed  by  the 
President,  without  a  mechanism  addressing  the  disparate  impact  of  the  different 
contribution  periods.  The  bill  was  adopted  as  Law  263/2010  on  16  December  2010  and 
entered  into  force  on  1  January  2011,  with  the  exception  of  several  provisions  which 
entered into force on 1 January 2012. 

Law 263/2010 introduces some exceptions falling within  the scope of  Article 6(2) of the 
Employment  Equality  Directive,  such  as  military  personnel,  police  officers  and  public 
servants working in prisons, national defence, public order and public safety, for whom the 
standard  retirement  age  is  60  years,  for  both  men  and  women,  with  a  minimum 
contribution period of 20 years and a full contribution period of 30 years. Different standard 
retirement ages are provided for persons who were persecuted for political reasons during 
the dictatorship established in 1945, and for those deported abroad, persons working for 
at least 15 years in a category one radiation zone, personnel working in mining who spent 
at least 50 % of their working time underground, artists, and civil aviation flight personnel. 

166   Romania, Law 19/2000 Law on the Public Pensions System and Other Social Benefits, 17 March 2000. 
167  Romania, Law 263/2010 on the Unitary System of Pensions, 16 December 2010. 
168  Law 19/2000 on the Public Pension System and Other Social Security Rights establishes the general age for 
retirement. Article 41(2) of Law 19/2000 establishes that ‘the standard retirement age is 60 for women and 
65 for men, and the standard retirement age will be reached in 13 years from the adoption of the law[by 1 
January 2014], by gradually increasing the pensionable age, starting with 57 for women and 62 for men.’ 
Besides the standard retirement age, potential pensioners are required to fulfil a number of years of 
contribution to the pension schemes (at least 30 years participation for women and 35 years for men). 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.7.2  Special conditions for young people, older workers and persons with caring 

responsibilities  

In Romania, there are special conditions set by law for older or younger workers in order 
to  promote  their  vocational  integration,  and  for  persons  with  caring  responsibilities  to 
ensure  their  protection.  The  Labour  Code  provides  for  specific  protective  measures  in 
relation to employees under 18 years of age who must have a work programme of no more 
than six hours/day and 30 hours/week (former Article 109, renumbered as Article 112); 
cannot work supplementary hours (Article 121, renumbered as Article 124) or during night 
shifts  (Article  125,  renumbered  as  Article  128);  must  have  a  lunch  break  of  at  least  30 
minutes  (Article  130,  renumbered  as  Article  133);  and  have  a  supplementary  holiday 
entitlement of three days (Article 142, renumbered as Article 147 (2)).169 

Employers may benefit from fiscal advantages if they hire students during their vacations 
or recent graduates, according to Law 76/2002.170 Article 80 of Law 76/2002 provides that 
employers who hire young graduates for at least three years are exempt  for 12 months 
from  paying  contributions  to  the  public  unemployment  fund  in  respect  of  the  graduates 
they employ, and receive a monthly contribution from the state, which can be the minimum 
average income or higher, depending on the education of the employee. 

According to Article 85 of Law 76/2002, employers hiring unemployed people who are over 
45  years  of  age,  or  unemployed  persons  who  have  caring  responsibilities  (sole  parent) 
receive  similar  advantages.  The  employers  are  under  an  obligation  to  maintain  the 
employment relationship for at least two years. 

The Labour Code provides for an exception from the general prohibition against individual 
fixed-term employment contracts, and allows such contracts in Article 81 d) renumbered 
as Article 83 e) in the case of a person who is seeking employment and who will reach the 
standard pensionable age within five years.171 

4.7.3  Minimum and maximum age requirements 

In  Romania,  there  are  no  exceptions  permitting  minimum  and/or  maximum  age 
requirements  in  relation  to  access  to  employment  (notably  in  the  public  sector)  and 
training.  Article  13  of  the  Labour  Code  establishes  the  minimum  age  for  access  to 
employment as 16 years, or 15 years with the approval of the parents or guardians of the 
person, ‘if the health, and professional development are not jeopardised’. Employment of 
children under 15 years of age is prohibited.172 Article 13(5) also provides that employment 
in difficult, damaging and dangerous conditions (as established in a governmental decision) 
can only be carried out by persons over 18 years of age. As a further example, only persons 
between 18 and 65 years of age can act as tourist guides, according to Annex 1 of Order 
637 of 1 April 2004 on approving the methodological norms for the conditions and criteria 
for  selecting,  educating,  certifying  and  utilising  tourist  guides,  issued  by  the  Ministry  of 
Transport,  Construction  and  Tourism.  Law  22/1969  on  employing  treasurers  (paying 
tellers) provides that paying tellers must be at least 21 years of age.173  

Law  333/2003  on  the  defence  of  objectives,  goods,  values  and  protection  of  persons 
mentions a minimum age of 18 years for persons seeking employment as guards. 

169  Romania, Labour Code (Codul Muncii), 24 January 2003, modified by Law 40/2011. 
170  Romania, Law 76/2002 on the System of Funds for Unemployment and Encouraging Occupation. 
171  Romania, Labour Code (Codul Muncii), 24 January 2003, modified by Law 40/2011. 
172  Romania, Labour Code (Codul Muncii), 24 January 2003, modified by Law 40/2011. 
173  Romania, Law 22/1969 on employing treasurers (paying tellers), (Lege Nr. 22 din 18 noiembrie 1969 

privind angajarea gestionarilor, constituirea de garanţii şi răspunderea în legătura cu gestionarea bunurilor 
organizaţiilor socialiste), 18 November 1969. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
4.7.4  Retirement  

a) 

State pension age 

Law 19/2000 on the Public Pension System and Other Social Security Rights174 established 
the  state  pension  age.  Article  41(2)  of  the  Law  19/2000  established  that  ‘the  standard 
retirement age is 60 years for women and 65 years for men, and the standard retirement 
age  will  be  reached  in  13  years  from  the  adoption  of  the  law  [by  1  January  2014],  by 
gradually increasing the pensionable age, starting with 57 years for women and 62 years 
for men.’ Besides the standard retirement age, potential pensioners were required to fulfil 
a number of years of contributions to the pension schemes (at least 30 years participation 
for women and 35 years for men). The Law on the Unitary System of Pensions, adopted in 
December 2010, introduced a new retirement age of 63 years for women and 65 years for 
men.175 This law has been in force since 1 January 2011. 

The mechanism developed in Law 19/2000 and maintained by Law 263/2010 provides that 
pensions are calculated based on an announced formula, based on points and taking into 
account the employee’s contribution and the contribution period; one pension point is equal 
to 45 % of the average gross salary paid in Romania; the pay-as-you-go (PAYG) system 
became a combined one which includes defined benefits for minimum stage of contribution 
and defined contribution for the rest.176 

Persons who reach the  standard pensionable age but want to work longer  may continue 
their  activities  if  their  employers  agree.  After  retiring,  pensioners  can  work  under  an 
individual work contract or under a civil convention (a contract ruled by civil law provisions 
and not by the Labour Code, which has as its object providing services). In such cases, the 
employment relationship is no longer regulated by the strict provisions of the Labour Code 
and it is merely a civil contract having as its object an obligation to undertake a certain 
activity. In such cases, pensioners could both collect the pension and receive the salary 
earned for their professional activity, no matter the amount collected. 

Persons  who  retire  for  medical  reasons  before  reaching  the  statutory  pensionable  age 
cannot work while collecting the pension. 

b)  Occupational pension schemes 

In  addition  to  the  public  PAYG  pension  scheme,  a  mandatory  personal  accounts  system 
was  introduced  at  the  beginning  of  2007.  A  system  of  voluntary  pension  schemes  also 
started operating in 2007. 

Participation in pension schemes (pensii private) has been compulsory for employees since 
2007,  in  accordance  with  Law  411/2004  on  Private  (Universal)  Pension  Schemes.  Any 
worker under the age of 35 years has to become a contributor to a private pension fund. 
The  contributions are optional for active workers between the ages  of 36 and 45 years. 
The  retirement  age  is  the  same  as  for  the  state  social  security  pension,  with  the  law 

174  Romania, Law 19/2000 Law on the public pensions system and other social benefits, 17 March 2000. 
175  Romania, Law 263/2010 on the Unitary System of Pensions, 16 December 2010. 
176  The pension is calculated using a points system: the employee receives a maximum of three credit points 

per full year of earnings at or above the average economy-wide wage. The pension points are calculated as 
the ratio of the person’s monthly gross wages and other compensation to the national average monthly 
gross wage for that year. The employee’s pension is determined by multiplying the pension points with the 
pension point value, which is laid down in the social security budget law every year. The system aims to 
ensure a pension of 45% of the average wage in the year of retirement for an employee with a full working 
career. By 2015, the full old age pension will be payable to men aged 65 years with 35 years of service and 
women aged 60 years with 30 years of service. Early retirement of up to 5 years is possible if the full 
service period has been completed. See OECD Report: Romania, http://www.oecd.org/countries/romania/3. 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
providing for the possibility of requesting retirement five years earlier if the participant has 
completed the full contribution period. 

A voluntary  system  of  contributions is established by Law  204  of May 2006  on  Optional 
Pension  Schemes,177  according  to  which  occupational  pension  schemes  are  considered 
facultative / optional pension schemes proposed either by employers or by employers and 
trade  unions.  Employees  and  the  self-employed  may  participate  in  voluntary  schemes. 
Participation  is  voluntary  for  employees.  Employees  can  participate  in  as  many 
occupational  schemes  as  they  wish  and  cumulate  pension  rights  and  benefits.  The 
contributions  can  be  shared  between  employer  and  employee  in  accordance  with  the 
scheme regulations or a collective agreement. Employees may at any time change the level 
of  contributions  or  cease  paying  contributions  altogether,  but  must  notify  the  employer 
and the pension scheme administrator. Participants can retire when they reach the age of 
60 years (both men and women), subject to the condition of having made contributions 
for a period of at least 90 months. 

c) 

State-imposed mandatory retirement ages 

In  Romania,  there  is  a  state-imposed  mandatory  retirement  age(s).  Law  263/2010 
established  a  new  retirement  age  of  63  years  for  women  and  65  years  for  men  in 
Article 53.178 However, there are exceptions to the  state-imposed mandatory  retirement 
age, as persons of pensionable age who want to carry on their activities can do so, if their 
employers agree. 

The Labour Code establishes the possibility in Article 61(e), renumbered as Article 56(c), 
for an employer to ask for termination of the employment relationship when an employee 
reaches the standard pensionable age and has contributed for the required number of years 
to  the  state  contribution  schemes,  even  if  the  employee  does  not  file  a  request  for 
retirement. 

The law does not specify whether the opposition of the employee to retirement has any 
effect. In practice, if the legal conditions are met, the request of the employer is followed 
by termination of the contract. 

Special  laws  provide  for  limitations  in  certain  sectors,  such  as  education.  For  example, 
Article 128 of Law 128/1997 on the Status of Educational Personnel establishes that non-
graduate teaching personnel who prove extraordinary professional competence can retain 
their tenure for up to three years after the retirement age, with the approval of the council 
of  teachers  of  the  relevant  educational  unit.  Academics  who  have  a  Ph.D.  degree  can 
continue their activity until they are 65 years of age. In the case of persons with exceptional 
professional competence, upon request the faculty senate can approve continuation of their 
work  annually  until  they  are  70  years  of  age  (Article  129).  Art.  289  of  Law  1/2011  on 
National Education provides that teaching and research personnel retire at 65 years of age. 

Law 95/2006 regarding the reform in the health system provides in Article 385 that medical 
doctors retire at 65 years  of age, irrespective  of gender; upon  request, medical doctors 
who are members of the Romanian Academy can continue their medical activity until they 
are 70 years of age. Nurses, midwives and medical support staff retire at 65 years of age, 
irrespective of gender, in accordance with Article 22 of Emergency Ordinance 144/2008. 

Judges, prosecutors, and assistant judges of the High Court, as well as the specialist legal 
personnel of the Ministry of Justice, Public Ministry, Superior Council of Magistracy, National 
Institute  of  Criminology,  National  Institute  of  Forensics  and  the  National  Institute  of 
Magistracy can be maintained in their position after they reach the legal retirement age 

177   Romania, Law 204/2006 on Optional Pensions Schemes, 22 May 2006. 
178  Romania, Law 263/2010 on the Unitary System of Pensions, 16 December 2010. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
until they are 70 years of age. Magistrates can choose to stay in office until they are 65 
years of age; after this age, an annual opinion from the Superior Council of Magistracy is 
needed, in accordance with Art. 83 of Law 303/2004 regarding the Statute of Judges and 
Prosecutors. 

Emergency  Ordinance  221/2004  regarding  pensions  and  other  social  insurance-related 
rights for lawyers mentions in Article 8 that the standard retirement age for lawyers is 60 
years for women and 65 years for men. 

The National Collective Agreement for 2007-2010, signed in accordance with Article 10 of 
Law 130/1996 on Collective Labour Agreements179 provided in Article 24 that, for certain 
sectors (difficult working conditions, dangerous, toxic or degrading conditions), employees 
could benefit from reductions of the pensionable age, in accordance with special laws and 
special collective contracts concluded at the level of each sector of the economy. Both the 
National Collective Agreement and Law 130/1996 have been abrogated and replaced by 
Law 62/2011 on Social Dialogue, which does not include provisions in this regard.180 

d) 

Retirement ages imposed by employers 

In Romania, national law permits employers to set retirement ages (or ages at which the 
termination of an employment contract is possible) by contract and/or collective bargaining 
and/or  unilaterally.  The  National  Collective  Agreement  for  2007-2010181  allowed  for 
reductions  of  the  pensionable  age  in  certain  sectors  (taking  into  consideration  difficult 
working  conditions,  dangerous,  toxic  or  degrading  conditions),  in  accordance  with  to 
special laws and special collective contracts concluded at the level of each sector. However, 
this provision has been abrogated and replaced by Law 62/2011 on Social Dialogue which 
does not include provisions in this regard.182 

The  standard  pensionable  age  cannot  be  increased,  as  Article  38  of  the  Labour  Code 
provides  that  ‘employees  cannot  give  up  the  rights  recognised  by  law.  Any  transaction 
having as its purpose the renunciation of rights provided for employees in the law is null 
and void’. 

If discriminatory retirement ages were to be established as a result of collective bargaining 
or  individual  contracts,  the  NCCD  would  sanction  these  as  discriminatory  treatment.  An 
analogy can be drawn with the NCCD decision in the case Uniunea Sindicatelor Libere din 
Învăţământul  Preuniversitar  [the  Undergraduate  Education  Trade  Union]  v.  Ministerul 
Educaţiei  şi  Cercetării  [the  Ministry  of  Education]  of  16  April  2007,  file  no.  78/2007,  in 
which the NCCD issued sanctions due to the fact that teaching and auxiliary educational 
personnel received a minimum gross salary lower than the minimum gross salary provided 
at  national  level  in  the  National  Collective  Agreement  for  2007-2010.  The  NCCD 
recommended  the  Ministry  of  Labour,  Social  Solidarity  and  Family  to  make  relevant 
changes to ensure that the minimum gross salary – as a social protection measure – is the 
same for all categories of employees.183 

e) 

Employment rights applicable to all workers irrespective of age 

179   The National Collective Agreement for 2007-2010, in accordance with Art. 10 of Law 130/1996, 29 January 

2007. 

180  Romania, Law 62/2011 on Social Dialogue, 10 May 2011. 
181   The National Collective Agreement for 2007-2010, signed in accordance with Art. 10 of Law 130/1996 29 

January 2007. 

182  Romania, Law 62/2011 on Social Dialogue 10 May 2011. 
183  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Decision on file no. 78/2007, Uniunea Sindicatelor Libere din Învăţământul Preuniversitar 
[Undergraduate Education Trade Union] v. Ministerul Educaţiei şi Cercetării [Ministry of Education], 16 April 
2007. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The general Anti-discrimination Law does not include any specific provisions on different 
treatment in relation to protection against dismissal on grounds of age. 

The  Labour  Code  protection  against  dismissal  applies  to  all  workers  irrespective  of  age, 
including persons who have reached pensionable age and choose to continue working with 
the approval of the employer. According to Article 61 e) renumbered as Article 56(c), if an 
employee  reaches  the  standard  pensionable  age  and  has  contributed  for  the  required 
number of years to the state contribution schemes, the employer can ask for termination 
of the employment relationship, even if the employee has not filed a request for retirement 
or opposes termination of the employment relationship,. 

The National Collective Agreement for 2007-2010 provided for an exemption in the case 
of  reduction  of  personnel.184  The  2011  Law  on  Social  Dialogue  abrogated  the  National 
Collective Agreement without including similar replacement provisions. 

f) 

Compliance of national law with CJEU case law 

Although  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  does  not  include  similar  wording  to  Article  6(1)  of 
Directive  2000/78,  in  limited  conditions  the  genuine  occupational  requirements  clause 
provided  for in Art. 41  of the  Law  can be interpreted as allowing the  option to derogate 
from the principle of prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age in respect of measures 
justified by legitimate social policy objectives, in conformity with the jurisprudence of the 
Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union  (CJEU),  such  as  C-488/05  The  Incorporated 
Trustees of the National Council on Ageing (Age Concern England) v. Secretary of State 
for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 2009.  

The provisions on compulsory retirement in Article 53 of the Law on the Unitary System of 
Pensions are problematic, mainly from the perspective of the gender dimension. 

4.7.5  Redundancy 

a) 

Age and seniority taken into account for redundancy selection 

In  Romania,  national  law  does  not  permit  age  or  seniority  to  be  taken  into  account  in 
selecting workers for redundancy. However, Article 81 of the National Collective Agreement 
2007-2010 introduced the concept of pensionable age, to the extent that ‘after the filling 
of  vacancies,  selection  for  redundancies  is  to  be  carried  out  in  the  following  descending 
order of priority:  

1. 

2. 

3. 

individual work contracts of those having two or more positions as well as of those 
collecting both a pension and a salary; 
individual work  contracts of those who fulfil the standard requirements of age  and 
period of contribution for retirement but who have not applied to retire; 
individual work  contracts of those who fulfil the standard requirements of age  and 
period of contribution for retirement, upon their request. 

184  Reduction of personnel on grounds of efficiency as provided for in the National Collective Agreement 

involved funding made available from budgetary sources other than regular retirement schemes. According 
to Art. 81 of the National Collective Agreement, after decreasing vacant positions, personnel reductions will 
be carried out under the following priority scheme, in descending order of priority: 
a.  individual work contracts of those having two or more positions as well as of those collecting both a 

pension and a salary; 

b.  individual work contracts of those who fulfil the standard requirements of age and period of contribution 

c. 

for retirement but who did not request to be retired; 
individual work contracts of those who fulfil the standard requirements of age and period of contribution 
for retirement, upon their request. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
These  differentiations  were  not  maintained  by  the  2011  Law  on  Social  Dialogue,  which 
abrogated the National Collective Agreement.185 Subsequent legislation will show if these 
principles are maintained. 

b) 

Age taken into account for redundancy compensation 

In Romania, national law does not provide for compensation for redundancy.  

4.8  Public  security,  public  order,  criminal  offences,  protection  of  health, 
protection  of  the  rights  and  freedoms  of  others  (Article  2(5),  Directive 
2000/78) 

In Romania, national law does not include exceptions that seek to rely on Article 2(5) of 
the Employment Equality Directive. 

4.9  Any other exceptions 

In  Romania,  the  only  exception  to  the  prohibition  of  discrimination  (on  any  ground) 
provided in national law is freedom of expression and the right to access to information, 
specifically mentioned in Article 2(8) of the Anti-discrimination Law, which states that its 
provisions  cannot  be  interpreted  so  as  to  limit  these  rights.  Guidelines  on  balancing 
freedom of expression and the right not to be discriminated against are absent, the case 
law  is  not  coherent  and  there  are  reported  cases  in  which  misinterpretation  of  this 
exception led to harassment not being penalised.  

185  Romania, Law 62/2011 on Social Dialogue, 10 May 2011. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5  POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Scope for positive action measures 

In Romania, positive action in respect of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, 
age or sexual orientation as well as all other protected grounds is provided for in national 
law.  Article  2(9)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  defines  positive  action  as  an  exemption 
from the prohibition against discrimination, stated as: 

‘Measures taken by public authorities or by legal entities under private law in favour 
of  a  person,  a  group  of  persons  or  a  community,  aiming  to  ensure  their  natural 
development and the effective achievement of their right to equal opportunities as 
opposed  to  other  persons,  groups  of  persons  or  communities,  as  well  as  positive 
measures  aiming  to  protect  disadvantaged  groups,  shall  not  be  regarded  as 
discrimination under the ordinance herein.’ 

Since  2007,  positive  action  measures  have  come  under  the  attack  from  extreme-right 
groups  such  as  Noua  Dreaptă  [New  Right]186  which  filed  petitions  with  the  NCCD,  all  of 
which were rejected. In a particular case of the NCCD, Decision 433 of 05 November 2007, 
file number 448/2007, C.E v. C., where the denial of access to special measures in relation 
to a Roma student had been questioned, the NCCD cited the jurisprudence of the Court of 
Justice  of  the  European  Union  on  the  principle  of  equality,  which  prohibits  different 
treatment  for  comparable  situations,  with  the  exception  of  cases  where  such  treatment 
has  an  objective  justification.  The  NCCD  stated  that  ‘the  measures  adopted  by  the 
Romanian  authorities,  in  particular  the  Ministry  of  Education,  in  relation  to  Roma  pupils 
had the purpose of ensuring equality of opportunities, resulting in the implementation of 
affirmative  measures.  Such  affirmative  measures,  by  their  own  nature,  had  as  their 
purpose progressive equalisation of the situation of Roma children from the perspective of 
opportunities in education, in order to bring them into a position similar or analogous with 
the  situation  of  other  pupils.  The  Ministry  of  Education  prepared  specific  procedures  in 
order to implement such measures.’187 

In its assessment of an alleged case of positive action, the NCCD stated that ‘employment 
of persons belonging to minority communities implies an affirmative measure in relation to 
that particular community. Such a measure can be maintained only until the objectives are 
reached and not afterwards. When the percentage of employees from a community in a 
particular institution corresponds with the percentage of the respective community in the 
area  of  its  location,  affirmative  measures  cannot  be  maintained  because  they  would  in 
themselves create a situation of inequality.’188 

b)  Main positive action measures in place on national level 

Besides the definition of positive action measures in the Anti-discrimination Law, specific 
legislation introduced affirmative measures in relation to particular groups: Roma, children 
and  youth,  particularly  children  and  young  people  living  with  HIV/AIDS,  persons  with 

186   Noua Dreaptă [New Right] is a non-governmental organisation registered in Romania. It acknowledges its 
descent from the interwar Romanian fascist movement called Legionari, whose head – Corneliu Zelea 
Codreanu – was executed by the Romanian authorities in 1938. See more information on the organisation’s 
website http://www.nouadreapta.ro. 

187  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), decision no. 433, file number 448/2007, 5 November 2007, C.E v. C. The complainant 
complained that her son was not accepted for a special place for Roma students in the institution of his 
choice, as the application filed for her son under a particular procedure was set aside by his teachers and 
replaced with a fake application on his behalf. The NCCD found that the complainant did not observe the 
special requirements in filing the application to qualify for special places for Roma students and decided that 
discrimination took place as alleged by the complainant. 

188   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Decision no. 43, file number 353/2007, 9 January 2008, A.M. v. Direcţia Generală a 
Finanţelor Publice a judeţului Harghita [Harghita county Public Finances General Inspectorate]. 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
disabilities, single parents, unemployed, socially vulnerable or senior citizens. No positive 
actions were reported in relation to religious minorities. 

Article 78(2) of Law 448/2006 on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Persons 
with a Handicap introduced the obligation for all authorities and public institutions, public 
or private legal persons with at least 50 employees to employ persons with disabilities at 
a level of at least four per cent of the total number of employees. However, there are no 
official data available regarding the number of persons employed following this provision 
or  the  number  of  employers  complying  with  the  requirement.  Employers  which  fail  to 
employ persons with disabilities in accordance with the law can choose between: 

a.  monthly payment of an amount representing 50 % of the minimum average salary 
for each position they were supposed to make available for a person with disabilities 
but failed to;  
to  use  products  and  services  from  authorised  protected  units  on  the  basis  of  a 
partnership, in the quantum of the amount owed to the state budget. 

b. 

There  are  different  categories  of  disability  recognised  under  the  Romanian  law189  and 
persons with disabilities were entitled to various affirmative measures as provided by Law 
448/2006. However the list of benefits has been significantly reduced due to the downsizing 
of social services in response to the economic crisis. 

- 

- 

- 
- 

- 

- 

- 

pupils with disabilities receive free meals and accommodation in boarding schools - 
Article 16 (7); 
students  with  disabilities  profound  and  severe  disability)  receive  upon  request  a 
reduction  of  50 %  for  meals  and  accommodation  in  school  canteens  and  student 
dormitories – Article 16(8); 
persons with disabilities have priority in being assigned public housing - Article 20; 
persons with a profound or severe disability have free transportation on all means of 
urban  public  transportation;  this  benefit  also  applies  to  assistants  of  persons  with 
serious disability, assistants of children with severe disability, assistants of persons 
with severe hearing and mental disabilities, based on a social inquiry conducted by a 
social assistant from the local mayor’s office, personal assistants of persons with a 
serious  disability  and  professional  assistants  of  persons  with  a  serious  or  severe 
disability – Article 23; 
persons with a disability who own cars adapted to their disability are exempt from 
paying charges for using the national roads – Article 28; 
adults with a disability receive a monthly indemnity as well as a monthly personal 
complementary budget, irrespective of personal income; the amounts depend on the 
category of disability - Art. 58(4) (see Section 2.4.6. h); 
any person with a disability who wants to be integrated into the workforce has access 
to free evaluation and professional counselling, no matter what their age, or the type 
or category of disability the person has – Art. 72. 

The Housing Law, Law 114/1996, provides for access to social housing for families with a 
low income, young people below 35 years of age, young people leaving social protection 
institutions  who  are  over  18  years  of  age,  persons  with  disabilities,  retired  persons, 
veterans and widows of war veterans.190 Roma are not expressly mentioned as one of the 

189  Romanian legislation provides for different categories of disability: 1) profound (Grav), 2) severe 

(accentuat), 3) moderate (mediu), 4) mild (ușor), according to Article 86 of the Law 448/2006. The 
medical-psycho-social criteria for deciding the category of disability are established in joint orders of the 
Ministry of Public Health and of the Ministry of Labour, Family and Equal Opportunities at the 
recommendation of the National Authority for Persons with Disabilities. 
190  Romania, Housing Law, Law. 114/1996 republished, 11 October 1996. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
social  groups  provided  for  in  Articles  42-43  of  the  Housing  Law  as  entitled  to  social 
housing.191  

In the particular case of Roma, the National Strategy for Improving the Situation of Roma, 
which  expired  in  2010,192  provided  in  rather  general  terms  for  obligations  to  establish 
positive  measures.  There  is  no  comprehensive  analysis  of  the  implementation  of  the 
National  Strategy  for  Improving  the  Situation  of  Roma.  Many  of  these  provisions  were 
defined as merely declarative intentions, lacking follow-up implementation measures, with 
the outstanding exception  of the area  of education, where quotas are  established every 
year for most universities and for high schools. 

Though  no  assessments  or  interim  reports  had  been  prepared,  the  Strategy  of  the 
Romanian  Government  on  the  Inclusion  of  Romanian  Citizens  Belonging  to  the  Roma 
Minority for the period 2012-2020 (Roma Inclusion Strategy), adopted in December 2011, 
remains  extremely  wide  in  its  scope  and  rather  sparse  in  effective  enforcement 
mechanisms.193 The policies proposed are mostly underdeveloped and backward-looking, 
proposing superficial measures which have been criticised by civil society groups.194 The 
Roma  Inclusion  Strategy  2012-2020  lacks  the  specificity  needed  in  order  to  be  a  clear 
policy framework, the actions and the responsibilities established are rather vague and the 
budgetary consequences are merely cursorily mentioned, without the inclusion of specific 
financial considerations. (The action plans developed for some of the priority areas include 
annual budgets for each action, others do not).  

The  2012-2020  Roma  Strategy  also  retains  measures  included  in  the  previous  Roma 
Inclusion Strategy such as: 

- 

- 

- 

affirmative  action  regarding  the  employment  of  Roma  in  central  and  local 
administration; 
designing  and  implementing  special  programmes  for  training  and  professional 
retraining for Roma; 
adopting legislative measures to support Roma with the purpose of ensuring facilities 
in the field of education for Roma and from the perspective  of promoting Roma in 
administration of educational institutions; 

191  Art. 43 of the Housing Law provides for the beneficiaries as decided by local authorities in accordance with 

annually established criteria, and in the order of priority as established by the law they can be: persons and 
families evicted, or who are to be evicted from houses returned to former owners, young people up to 35 
years old, young people coming from social protection institutions who have turned 18, people with physical 
disabilities of degree I and II, ‘handicapped’ persons, pensioners, war veterans and widows, the 
beneficiaries of the Law 341/2004 for the recognition of martyr-heroes and fighters who have contributed to 
the victory of the Romanian revolution of December 1989 as well as of the persons who have sacrificed their 
life and have suffered as a consequence of the workers’ anti-Communist revolt of Brasov in 1987 and of Law 
118/1990 (persons who have suffered for political reasons during Communism), and other persons or 
families which might be entitled to the right to housing. 

192  Romania, Government Decision 522/2006 on modification and adjustment of the Government Decision 
430/2001 regarding the Romanian Government’s Strategy on the Improvement of the Roma Situation, 
(19.04.2006), available at: http://www.anr.gov.ro/strategia-anr/ (10.02.2011). 

193  Romania, Governmental Decision 1221 on approving the Strategy of the Romanian Government on the 
Inclusion of Romanian Citizens Belonging to the Roma Minority for the period 2012-2020 (Hotărârea de 
Guvern pentru aprobarea Strategiei Guvernului Romaniei de incluziune a cetățenilor români aparținând 
minorității romilor pentru perioada 2012-2020), 14 December 2011, available at: 
http://www.anr.gov.ro/docs/MO6bis.pdf.  

194  Some of these criticisms can be found here: Centre for Legal Resources (2011), ‘The Centre for Legal 

Resources draws the attention upon the discriminatory provisions from the Draft Strategy of the Romanian 
Government for the Inclusion of the Romanian citizens belonging to the Roma minority (2011-2020)’, 27 
October 2011, available at: http://old.crj.ro/Noutati-30/ and Proposals for amendment of the Draft Strategy 
of the Romanian Government for the Inclusion of Romanian Citizens Belonging to the Roma Minority, 
(Propuneri de revizuire a proiectului strategiei Guvernului României de incluziune a cetăţenilor români 
aparţinând minorităţii romilor), signed by 21 entities, most of them Roma NGOs but also including 
representatives of UN bodies in Romania, available at:  
http://www.romanicriss.org/PDF/Comentarii_Strategie_ONG-uri_FINAL%281%29.pdf. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
- 

- 

reducing Roma unemployment rates and combating discrimination in employment by 
establishing facilities for employers employing Roma; 
establishing  facilities  and  financed  places  for  young  Roma  who  want  to  undertake 
graduate education. 

86 

 
 
 
6  REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT  

6.1  Judicial  and/or  administrative  procedures  (Article  7  Directive  2000/43, 

Article 9 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Available procedures for enforcing the principle of equal treatment 

In Romania, the following procedures exist for enforcing the principle of equal treatment 
under  the  Anti-discrimination  Law:  judicial  before  civil  courts,  administrative  before  the 
national equality body (NCCD) and alternative dispute resolution such as mediation as a 
possibility before both the courts and the NCCD. In specific fields, such as employment or 
education,  the  relevant  authorities  might  receive  and  investigate  complaints  of 
discrimination in the particular field, though the NCCD reports that in practice these entities 
usually redirect complainants to the equality body. 

The  Romanian  anti-discrimination  system  provides  for  a  mixed  system  of  venues: 
contraventional  (administrative),  civil  and  criminal.  In  cases  of  an  alleged  act  of 
discrimination, the victim of discrimination or any interested person can choose between 
filing a complaint with the NCCD, and/or filing a civil complaint for civil damages with the 
courts of law, unless the act is criminal, where the Criminal Code provisions apply. Both 
before the NCCD and the courts, the parties can reach a friendly agreement at any time in 
the proceedings. 

In a November 2009 decision, the Constitutional Court clearly stated that the NCCD is not 
an extraordinary court and confirmed the constitutionality of the mandate of the national 
equality body as an administrative-jurisdictional entity. The Court noted that the NCCD is 
not  a  mandatory  forum  and  that  victims  may  choose  between  two  fora  to  enforce  their 
rights.195 The possibility of dual, even simultaneous venues as an exception to the principle 
of electa una via non datur recursus ad alteram was argued by the High Court of Justice 
and  Cassation,  which  emphasised  that  using  one  of  the  venues,  the  NCCD  (in  the  case 
concerned, an administrative complaint before the NCCD under Article 20 was followed by 
an  administrative  appeal  challenging  its  decision),  does  not  have  any  impact  on  the 
admissibility of a petition filed before the civil court under Article 27.196 

The  fact  that  the  two  fora  (NCCD  and  civil  court)  are  not  mutually  exclusive  and  the 
complainant can choose to use only one or to use both simultaneously creates problems in 
practice  for  the  parties,  the  NCCD  and  the  judiciary.  In  addition,  the  action  before  the 
NCCD does not have a suspensive effect in regard to the prescription of the administrative 
or  civil  action.  The  complaint  with  the  NCCD  might  result  in  an  administrative  sanction 
(administrative warning or fine), while the civil case, judged under general torts provisions, 
results in civil damages payable to the victim of discrimination, re-establishing the status 
quo ante, the situation as it was before the act of discrimination occurred, or nullifying the 
situation established as a result of the discrimination, in accordance with civil law provisions 
on torts. Following the 2013 amendments to the Anti-discrimination Law, both the NCCD 
and the courts can oblige the perpetrator to publish a brief summary of the decision in the 
media. 

In  a  series  of  decisions  issued  in  2008,  the  Romanian  Constitutional  Court  (Curtea 
Constituțională) limited the mandates of both the NCCD197 and the civil courts in relation 

195  Romania, Constitutional Court (Curtea Constituţională) Decision 1470, 10 November 2009. 
196  Romania, High Court of Justice and Cassation (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție) Decision 5211, 7 

December 2012, available in Romanian at: http://www.scj.ro/. 

197  Romania, Constitutional Court (Curtea Constituţională), Decision 997, 7 October 2008, finding that Article 
20 (3) of the Anti-discrimination Law (GO 137/2000), defining the mandate of the NCCD in relation to 
discrimination triggered by legislative provisions, is unconstitutional. 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
to  discrimination  generated  by  legislative  norms.198  Subsequently,  protection  against 
discrimination in cases where the discrimination is triggered by legislative norms (laws or 
ordinances) is limited and depends on the willingness of the Ombudsman to bring a case 
before the Constitutional Court – the only institution able to declare discriminatory norms 
unconstitutional.  In  cases  where  a  legal  provision  is  incompatible  with  the  anti-
discrimination principle, thus falling outside the scope of European Union law, the national 
equality  body  (NCCD),  when  faced  with  such  provisions,  does  not  have  a  mechanism 
allowing it to decline to apply that particular legal provision, as provided by the Court of 
Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in C-555/07 Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & 
Co. K.G. of 19 January 2010. 

b) 

Barriers and other deterrents faced by litigants seeking redress 

While there is no need  for a lawyer when bringing a claim before the NCCD, before  the 
courts it is preferable for claimants to instruct a lawyer or be represented by an NGO. A 
deterrent to seeking redress is the informal practice developed by the NCCD of sanctioning 
cases of discrimination with an administrative warning or with a recommendation, neither 
of which carry any financial penalty.  

Another deterrent is the limited publicity given to the decisions in discrimination cases: the 
NCCD  does  not  publish  its  decisions  and  only  several  old  decisions  are  available  on  its 
website. The courts publish information regarding their decisions but the reasoning of the 
decision  is  available  only  to  the  parties  to  the  case  and  only  after  considerable  delay. 
Furthermore,  the  few  search  engines  which  compile  jurisprudence  do  not  include  the 
provisions of the Anti-discrimination Law as a search category. 

Individuals bringing cases before the courts might be discouraged by the prohibitive costs 
of legal services and by the length of judicial proceedings. 

c) 

Number of discrimination cases brought to justice 

In  Romania  there  are  no  available  statistics  on  the  number  of  cases  related  to 
discrimination brought to justice. There is no information provided by the Ministry of Justice 
or  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy  on  statistical  data  regarding  the  cases  related  to 
discrimination  brought  to  justice.  In  its  annual  reports,  the  NCCD  provides  information 
regarding the number of petitions received and decisions issued each year, including the 
number of decisions issued by the NCCD and subsequently challenged before the courts.  

d) 

Registration of discrimination cases by national courts 

In Romania discrimination cases  are not registered as such by  the national courts. Only 
the NCCD registers cases by ground and field and makes the data available to the public 
each year in its activity report. 

6.2  Legal standing and associations (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/43, Article 9(2) 

Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Standing to act on behalf of victims of discrimination (representing them) 

In Romania, associations/organisations/trade unions are entitled to act on behalf of victims 
of discrimination. Article 28 of the Romanian Anti-discrimination Law defines two different 

198   Romania, Constitutional Court (Curtea Constituţională), Decisions 818, 819, 820, 3 July 2008. The 
Constitutional Court concluded that the dispositions of Article 1(2)e and of Article 27 of the Anti-
discrimination Law are unconstitutional, to the extent that they are understood as implying that the courts 
of law have the authority to nullify or to refuse the application of legal norms when considering that such 
norms are discriminatory. Available at: http://www.ccr.ro/ccrSearch/MainSearch/SearchForm.aspx.  

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
types  of  legal  standing  before  the  NCCD  and  the  courts  for  NGOs  with  an  interest  in 
combating discrimination: 

‘(1) Human rights non-governmental organisations can appear in court as parties in 
cases involving discriminations pertaining to their field of activity and which prejudice 
a community or a group of persons. 
(2) The organisations provided in the above paragraph can also appear in court as 
parties  in  cases  involving  discrimination  that  prejudice  a  person,  if  the  latter 
delegates the organisation to that effect.’ 

When a petition regarding the unconstitutionality of the provision granting legal standing 
to NGOs was brought before it, the Romanian Constitutional Court, in Decision 285 of 1 July 
2004, rejected the argument of the petitioners, who claimed that recognising legal standing 
for NGOs led to ‘a situation of inequity and discrimination for the parties which did not put 
themselves under the protection of an NGO of this kind’.199 

Article 37 of the new Civil Procedure Code, which entered into force on 1 February 2013, 
provides that ‘in the cases and conditions specifically provided for by the law, complaints 
can  be  filed  or  defences  can  be  submitted  by  persons,  organisations,  institutions  or 
authorities which, without justifying a personal interest, act for the defence of rights and 
legitimate interests of persons who find themselves in special situations or, as necessary, 
with the purpose of protecting a group or a general interest.’200 

b) 

Standing to act in support of victims of discrimination 

In  Romania,  associations/organisations/trade  unions  are  entitled  to  act  in  support  of 
victims  of  discrimination.  Besides  being  able  to  initiate  proceedings  in  nome  proprio  as 
provided by Article 28(1) of the Anti-discrimination Law in cases involving discrimination 
pertaining to their field of activity and which prejudice a community or a group of persons, 
NGOs can also support  victims of discrimination and act on their behalf, as provided by 
Article 28(2) subject to the condition of obtaining a mandate from the victims.  

When they have an interest in making a particular legal argument, NGOs can ask the courts 
to  join  already  pending  procedures  as  interested  parties  under  ordinary  civil  procedure 
provisions. Similarly, not mentioned specifically by the law but accepted in the practice of 
the  NCCD,  associations  may  be  allowed  to  submit  amicus  curiae  briefs  in  support  of  a 
complainant. The internal procedures of the NCCD mention the possibility of amicus curiae 
from NGOs with expertise in a particular field.201 

c) 

Actio popularis 

In Romania, national law allows associations / organisations / trade unions to act in the 
public interest on their own behalf, without a specific victim to support or represent (actio 
popularis).  According  to  Article  28(2)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Law,  associations  with 
protection of human rights as their mandate can file complaints on their own behalf, both 
with  the  NCCD  and  with  the  courts,  when  the  target  of  discrimination  is  a  group  or  a 
community. The same rules of procedure apply, the only additional requirement being that 
the  NGOs  must  provide  their  by-laws  in  order  to  show  that  their  declared  associational 
objective is protecting human rights or combating discrimination. 

There are no specific provisions regarding remedies sought or special rules, including on 
the burden of proof. However, the remedies that can be obtained are limited, given that a 
direct,  personal  and  actual  interest  and  effective  damages  (harm  suffered,  material 

199  Romania, Constitutional Court (Curtea Constituţională), Decision 285,1 July 2004. 
200  Romania, Law 134/2010 Civil Procedure Code, 1 July 2010.  
201  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Order approving the internal procedure in solving petitions, 11 April 2008. 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
damages) must be proved before the  civil courts. As NGOs have difficulties in providing 
evidence regarding quantifiable damages before the courts, the NCCD remains the main 
available forum for such cases. The remedies provided for by the courts might be different, 
however, as proof of direct and effective damage incurred needs to be provided under torts 
provisions. In a 2006 case, D.Z. v. Distrigaz Sud, the complainant – an employee of an 
NGO working in the field of LGBT rights who was harassed because of his association with 
the  NGO  –  sought  civil  damages  and  asked  the  court  to  order  the  defendant  to  take 
institutional measures to preclude discriminatory behaviour in the future, to include in its 
internal  norms  a  specific  prohibition  of  discrimination  on  all  grounds  and  to  train  its 
employees  on  anti-discrimination  provisions.  The  court  defined  ‘interest’  in  conjunction 
with ‘the practical gain obtained’ and stated that ‘interest must exist, be personal, real and 
actual  and  legal.’  The  court  also  discussed  the  issue  of  systemic  remedies,  such  as 
institutional measures on combating discrimination and diversity management policies, or 
the training requested by the complainant as a possible remedy, and decided not to grant 
such  remedies.  It  considered  that  there  was  no  ‘actual  interest’  for  the  complainant  in 
being granted such general remedies, given that by the time of the decision the defendant 
had already adopted internal regulations, including non-discriminatory provisions.202 

d) 

Class action 

In Romania, national law allows associations / organisations / trade unions to act in the 
interest of more than one individual victim (class action) for claims arising from the same 
event. Class actions are not allowed under civil procedure  in Romanian law nor are they 
specifically mentioned by the Anti-discrimination Law. However, in the case of the NCCD, 
aggregate claims by more than one individual victim arising from the same event would 
be annexed to one file both before the NCCD and the courts. If NGOs represent more than 
one victim, as provided by Article 28, declarations issued by each individual victim must 
be included. The procedures and remedies remain the same. 

6.3  Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78) 

In  Romania,  national  law  requires  or  permits  a  shift  of  the  burden  of  proof  from  the 
complainant  to  the  respondent.  The  2013  amendments  to  the  Anti-discrimination  Law 
further clarified the language in Article 20 and Article 27, stating that: 

‘The  interested  person  will  present  facts  based  on  which  it  can  be  presumed  that 
direct or indirect discrimination exists, and the person against whom the complaint 
was  filed  has  the  duty  to  prove  that  no  infringement  of  the  principle  of  equal 
treatment occurred. Before the Steering Board (the courts) any means of proof can 
be  brought,  observing  the  constitutional  regime  of  fundamental  rights,  including 
audio and video recordings and statistical data.’ 

While the NCCD’s interpretation of this provision complies with the directives in most cases, 
judicial  interpretation  has  varied  and  some  courts  have  interpreted  this  as  placing  an 
unreasonable burden  on the victim, in contradiction of the substantive provisions of the 
directives. However, not even the case law of the NCCD is fully compliant with the acquis. 
In  practice,  prior  to  the  2013  amendments  the  seemingly  innocuous  terminological 
difference  led  to  a  great  number  of  cases  in  which  the  NCCD  ruled  that  there  was  not 
enough  evidence  submitted  by  the  defendant  to  prove  existence  of  discrimination.  The 
understanding  of  the  burden  of  proof  as  entailing  a  preliminary  obligation  of  the 
complainant  to  provide  all  facts  indicating  that  discrimination  occurred  (as  opposed  to 
allowing  a  presumption  that  it  did),  coupled  with  the  failure  of  the  NCCD  to  engage 
proactively in investigations (as mandated by Article 19 c of the Anti-discrimination Law  
as amended and consolidated in 2006), led to decisions of the NCCD in which it concluded 

202  Romania, Court of first instance No. 4, Bucharest (Judecătoria sectorului 4 Bucureşti), Decision 4222, file 

no. 710/4/2006, 10 August 2007.  

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
that no discrimination occurred, while the same case, tried before a court of law had the 
opposite result, and discrimination was found and damages were awarded accordingly. 

In the case M.D. v. Palatul National al Copiilor, Decision no. 256 of 17 September 2007 in 
file no. 380/2007, regarding the complaint of M.D. against the institution, which refused 
to hire him as teacher on grounds of his being certified as having a severe disability,203 the 
NCCD  applied  the  shift  in  the  burden  of  proof  and  noted  that  the  complainant  as  an 
interested  person  proved  that  he  was  rejected  for  employment  and  that  he  had  the 
competence required for the position, while the defendant failed to prove that the refusal 
to employ the complainant did not amount to discrimination according to Article 20 (6), 
and sanctioned the employer, through its legal representative, with an administrative fine 
of EUR 100 (RON 400).204 

In a 2009 decision,205 the NCCD extensively discussed the theoretical aspects of the burden 
of proof, referring to  previous leading cases in which the  NCCD  stated that ‘the defined 
procedure  for  the  shift  in  the  burden  of  proof  is  more  nuanced  than  the  wording  would 
suggest  and,  in  practice,  the  principle  implies  dividing  the  onus  of  the  evidence  and  a 
transfer to the defendant of those elements related to him/her, in relation to the facts of 
the  case’.206  The  NCCD  added  that  ‘it  cannot  be  interpreted  that  this  is  an  absolute 
exemption from the procedural rules of onus probandi incubit actori, reversing the burden 
of proof completely, as the very legal provision from Article 20 (6) specifies the duties of 
the parties by sharing the burden of proof between the complainant and the defendant.’ 

The Labour Code, as modified and consolidated by Law 40/2011, mentions the regime of 
the burden of proof in employment-related disputes in Articles 272-273.207  

‘Art. 272 The burden of proof in labour disputes is on the employer who is obliged to 
submit the evidence in his defence by the first day of the hearings.  
Art.  273  The  evidence  shall  be  administered  observing  the  emergency  procedure, 
and in case a party unduly delays administration of evidence, the court is entitled to 
reject the right of submitting admitted evidence.’ 

The new provision in the Labour Code introduces an automatic shift in the burden of proof 
in cases of discrimination in employment relationships, with an obligation for the employer 
to submit the evidence before the first hearings. The provision seems to be in compliance 
with the phrasing of the burden of proof in the directives. No relevant case law allowing 
assessment of implementation has so far been reported. 

6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) 

In Romania, there are legal measures for protection against victimisation which had been 
actively  used  both  before  the  courts  and  before  the  NCCD.  Article  2 (7)  of  the  Anti-
discrimination Law defines as victimisation ‘any adverse treatment triggered by a complaint 
in  general  or  by  a  case  lodged  with  the  courts  of  law  regarding  the  infringement  of  the 
principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination’. Protection against victimisation is not 
limited by Romanian law to the complainant but also extends to the witnesses. As the law 
does not distinguish, victimisation is prohibited not only in relation to complaints filed with 

203   There are four different categories of disability depending on the gravity of the impairment: mild, moderate, 

severe and profound, medium, accentuated and serious, according to Art. 86 (1) of Law 448/2006. 

204   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), M.D. v. Palatul National al Copiilor, Decision no. 256, file no. 380/2007, 17 September 2007. 

205  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Decision 77, 3 February 2009. 

206  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Decision 180, 17 July 2007, Romani CRISS v. C.P.T. 

207  Romania, Law 40/2011 for amending and completing Law 53.2003, the Labour Code, (Legea nr. 40/2011 

pentru modificarea si completarea Legii nr. 53/2003), 31 March 2011. Unofficial translation available at: 
http://www.codulmuncii.ro/en/title-12/page-1. 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the  NCCD  but  also  in  relation  to  those  filed  with  any  other  public  or  private  institution 
(labour inspectorate, consumer protection office etc.). No provision regarding the burden 
of proof in cases of victimisation is included in the law. 

6.5  Sanctions and remedies (Article 15 Directive 2000/43,  Article 17 Directive 

2000/78) 

a) 

Applicable sanctions in cases of discrimination – in law and in practice 

When it finds that discrimination occurred, the NCCD can issue administrative sanctions: 
administrative warnings and fines. A  negative  aspect of  NCCD practice is that when the 
perpetrators  are  central  or  local  governmental  agencies  or  public  actors,  the  NCCD  has 
informally developed the practice of sanctioning them with administrative warnings or of 
issuing  recommendations  carrying  no  financial  penalties.  The  NCCD  justifies  this  as 
exercising  a  pro-active  mandate  in  preventing  discrimination.  However,  it  dilutes  the 
meaning of effective remedies in cases of discrimination and increasingly the courts of law, 
faced  with  appeals  against  such  decisions,  decide  to  return  the  files  to  the  NCCD  with 
instructions  to  issue  an  adequate  remedy  if  discrimination  is  found.  Another  negative 
aspect  prior  to  the  2013  amendments  was  that  when  proceedings  took  longer  than  six 
months  from  the  date  of  the  deed,  no  financial  sanctions  could  be  imposed  due  to  the 
statutory  limitation  in  Article  13  of  Ordinance  2/2001  on  the  general  regime  of 
contraventions.208  

The amount of the fines varies. Prior to the March 2013 amendments, where the victim 
was only one person, the amount of the fine was within the range of EUR 100-1 000 (RON 
400-4 000); where the victims were a group or a community, the fine was within the range 
of EUR 150-2 000 (RON 600-8 000). In assessing the quantum of the fines as well as the 
practice of issuing only a warning when finding discrimination, the Court of Justice of the 
European  Union  (CJEU)  noted  in  its  decision  C-81/12  that  ‘a  purely  symbolic  sanction 
cannot be regarded as being compatible with the correct and effective implementation of 
Directive 2000/78’. 

Following  the  amendments,  where  the  victim  is  an  individual,  the  amount  of  the  fine  is 
within the range of EUR 250-7 500 (RON 1 000-30 000); where the victims are a group or 
a community, the fine is within the range of EUR 500-25 000 (RON 2 000-100 000). 

In the case of a civil complaint for damages, the complainant can request pecuniary and 
moral  damages  and  other  types  of  sanctions  (withdrawal  or  suspension  of  licence  for 
private entities providing services). The courts of law can decide that the public authorities 
shall  withdraw  or  suspend  the  authorisation  to  operate  of  legal  persons  who  cause 
significant  damages  as  a  result  of  discriminatory  action  or  who  repeatedly  infringe  the 
provisions  of  the  anti-discrimination  legislation  as  provided  in  Article  27  of  the  Anti-
discrimination  Law.  This  provision  is  not  supported  by  reported  jurisprudence.  Both  the 
NCCD and the courts can oblige the defendant to publish their decisions in the media.209 

In work-related disputes brought before the labour courts (sections within the civil courts 
specialising in labour law), the complainants can also request moral damages, including on 
grounds  of  discrimination.  The  Labour  Code  was  amended  in  2007  to  include  ‘moral 
liability’, a specific obligation on the employer to pay both moral and material damages to 
the employee, to compensate the employee for loss, injury or any harm suffered during 
employment, or in connection with work activities.210 

208  Romania, Ordinance 2/2001 on the general regime of contraventions (Ordonanta nr. 2/2001 privind regimul 

juridic al contraventiilor), 24 August 2001. 

209  Romania, Law 189/2013 for the ratification of Emergency Ordinance 19/2013 for the amendment of 

Government Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of 
discrimination, 25 June 2013. 

210   Romania, Law 237/2007 amending the Labour Code, 12 July 2007. 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
b) 

Ceiling and amount of compensation 

Compensation can be awarded solely by the courts of law. There are no ceilings established 
for  the  amount  of  compensation  awarded  in  a  civil  case  for  damages  on  grounds  of 
discrimination, but the courts are rather reluctant to award moral damages as a result of 
a long legal tradition prior to 1989 of describing moral damages as unjust enrichment. A 
recent trend of awarding higher moral damages in cases of discrimination became apparent 
in 2010, when the Craiova Court of Appeal increased the damages awarded in a case of 
discrimination in education of a Roma pupil to EUR 10 000.211 

c) 

Assessment of the sanctions 

The NCCD has informally developed a practice of adopting recommendations carrying no 
pecuniary  damages  when  the  perpetrators  are  central  governmental  agencies  or  public 
actors such as politicians (e.g. where discrimination is triggered by a government minister’s 
orders or the internal regulations of central public administration) or when the conditions 
established by the law are not fully met (for example, prior to 2013 there were frequent 
cases when, due to the statute of limitations, no administrative sanction could be applied, 
as was the case in the situation leading to  the CJEU decision in  C-81/12).212 As the law 
does not specifically mention recommendations as remedies, the NCCD argues that they 
fall  under  its  preventive  mandate  and  are  future-oriented,  while  NGOs  criticise  this 
practice,  arguing  that  recommendations  fail  to  provide  effective  remedies  for  cases  of 
discrimination, contrary to Article 17 of Directive 2000/78/EC and Article 15 of Directive 
2000/43/EC. In 2012, out of the 113 cases where it found discrimination, the NCCD issued 
recommendations  carrying  no  financial  penalty  in  55  cases,  58  administrative  warnings 
also carrying no financial penalty, and imposed administrative fines in 35 cases. The fines 
ranged from approximately EUR 90 to EUR 1 800 (RON 400 to RON 8 000) in a total amount 
of approximately EUR 26 500 (RON 114 000).213 The NCCD’s 2013 annual report mentions 
110 fines, 48 recommendations and 34 warnings issued; with most fines (48) were in the 
amount of approximately EUR 227 (RON 1 000), and the total amount for all fines imposed 
was approximately EUR 60 863 (RON 267 800).214 No data is yet available for 2014. The 
practice  of  alleging  that  recommendations  or  warnings  represent  an  effective, 
proportionate  and  dissuasive  remedy  is  contrary  to  the  directives,  based  on  the 
interpretation offered by the CJEU in C-81/12. 

Though  Article  19 d)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  mentions  monitoring  of  acts  of 
discrimination among the functions of the NCCD, in practice there is no mechanism which 
would  allow  adequate  monitoring  of  compliance  with  the  decisions  issued  by  the  NCCD, 
and the NCCD is not active in relation to this part of its mandate. In practice, monitoring 
of  enforcement  of  sanctions  or  recommendations  depends  on  the  interest  taken  by  the 
member of the NCCD Steering Board responsible for each file. When requested to provide 
information  on  this  issue,  the  NCCD  replied  that  after  issuing  a  decision  on  an 
administrative fine, both the NCCD and the courts of law communicate the decision to local 
public fiscal authorities.  

211  Romania, Craiova Court of Appeal (Curtea de Apel Craiova), Judicial decision, File 8011/101/2009 Curtea de 

Apel Craiova, 19 May 2010. 

212  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării) 

Decision 260, ACCEPT v. the Ministry of Health, 29 August 2007. 

213  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Raportul de activitate al Consiliului Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării 2012. 

214  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Raportul de activitate al Consiliului Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării 2013. 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In theory, the person fined by the NCCD or by the courts has a duty to send proof of paying 
the fine (copy of the receipt).However, there is no information available as to whether such 
communication ever occurs and whether the NCCD compiles this type of information.215 

The  lack  of  adequate  monitoring  of  enforcement  of  the  sanctions  issued  by  the  NCCD 
detracts from the effectiveness and dissuasive and educational impact such sanctions are 
supposed to have. 

There is no clear picture and no assessment of the sanctions issued by courts in cases of 
discrimination. Given the limited number of cases publicly available, it can be concluded 
that the courts established a ceiling  for moral damages of a maximum of  EUR 10 000 – 
this  was  awarded  in  a  limited  number  of  cases.  Pecuniary  damages  need  to  be  proved 
based on the regular civil procedure on torts. 

215   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Official communication no. 6082, 22 April 2008, and communication sent on 25 February 
2009 as a response to request for information no. 1216 of 30 January 2009. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7  BODIES  FOR  THE  PROMOTION  OF  EQUAL  TREATMENT  (Article  13  Directive 

2000/43) 

a) 

Body/bodies  designated  for  the  promotion  of  equal  treatment  irrespective  of 
racial/ethnic origin according to Article 13 of the Racial Equality Directive. 

The National Council for Combating Discrimination (NCCD) is a specialised body mandated 
to deal with all forms  of discrimination on every ground, including race or  ethnic origin, 
nationality,  religion  (including  religious  or  non-religious  belief),  disability,  age,  sexual 
orientation. Since September 2006, the NCCD  has been an autonomous public authority 
under  the  control  of  the  Parliament.  The  NCCD  remains  independent  in  carrying  out  its 
mandate: 

‘Art. 17 In exercising its mandate, the NCCD  carries out its activity independently, 
without being hindered or influenced by other institutions or public authorities. 

Art. 18 (1) The Council is responsible for enforcing and controlling the observance of 
the provisions of this law, in its line of work, as well as for harmonising the provisions 
from normative or administrative act infringing the principle of non-discrimination. 

(2)  The  Council  develops  and  enforces  public  policies  in  the  field  of  anti-
discrimination. With this purpose, the Council will consult with public authorities, non-
governmental organisations, trade unions and other legal entities with a mission in 
protecting human rights or with a legitimate interest in combating discrimination. 

Art.  19  With  the  purpose  of  combating  discrimination,  the  Council  will  exercise  its 
mandate in the following areas: 

preventing cases of discrimination; 

a) 
b)  mediating in cases of discrimination; 
c) 
d)  monitoring cases of discrimination; 
e) 

providing specialised assistance to victims of discrimination. 

investigating, finding and sanctioning cases of discrimination; 

(2)  The  Council  exercises  its  mandate  upon  request  from  an  individual  or  a  legal 
person or ex officio.’ 

Different departments within the NCCD handle investigation, mediation and assistance for 
victims only the Steering Board of the NCCD is responsible for considering petitions and 
issuing decisions. 

Other specialist public institutions with mandates to protect the rights of specific groups, 
such as persons with disabilities (NAPH), women (NAEQ), children (NAPCR) did not have 
any role in addressing discrimination based on these specific grounds and  have all been 
subsumed as departments within the Ministry of Labour following institutional restructuring 
in 2010-2011 caused by financial constraints.216 

b) 

Status of the designated body/bodies – general independence 

In September 2006, the NCCD became an autonomous public authority under the control 
of the Parliament but it retains its independence in carrying out its mandate. This change 
was intended to ensure the independence of the NCCD as provided in Article 17 of the Anti-
discrimination Law. With this there also came a change in the procedure for appointing the 
members of the Steering Board (the governing body of the NCCD) and the risk of increased 

216 Romania, Governmental Decision No. 728/2010. 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
politicisation  of  the  Steering  Board,  as  the  Parliament  tends  to  appoint  on  the  basis  of 
political algorithm rather than expertise or professional credentials.217 

The  NCCD  is  governed  by  a  Steering  Board  of  nine  members,  ranked  as  secretaries  of 
state, managed by a president elected by the members of the Steering Board (Article 22). 
The Steering Board is a collegial body, responsible for enforcing the legal mandate of the 
NCCD (Article 23). The members of the Steering Board are proposed and appointed in a 
joint session of the Parliament by the two Chambers (Article 23 (2)) with the requirement 
that at least two-thirds of the members are law graduates.  

Any  Romanian  citizen  can  be  appointed  as  a  member  of  the  Steering  Board  under  the 
following conditions: 

1) 
2) 
3) 
4) 

5) 
6) 

has full legal capacity; 
graduated from university education with a diploma (licenţa); 
does not have a criminal record and has a good reputation; 
his/her activity in the field of protecting human rights and combating discrimination 
is well known; 
did not collaborate with the Communist political police; 
did not collaborate with the secret service. 

Article 24 of the Anti-discrimination Law establishes the procedures for appointment of the 
members  of  the  Steering  Board.  The  process  starts  60  days  before  the  positions  are 
vacated.218 The Permanent Bureaus of the Parliament publish information on proposals for 
candidates  on  their  websites  and  send  the  proposals  to  special  committees  to  organise 
hearings  in  a  joint  session.  The  law  provides  for  a  period  of  10  days  from  the  date  of 
publication of this information when anybody can register written objections in relation to 
the candidates. After hearing the candidates, the special committees issue a joint opinion, 
which is presented to the parliamentary chambers convened in a joint session. Candidates 
are approved by a majority of votes of the deputies and senators present. The mandate of 
the members is for a period of five years and it is renewable (Article 25). 

Since the number of Steering Board members was increased from seven to nine persons 
by the 2006 amendments, in the autumn of 2007 the Parliament started procedures for 
the  appointment  of  two  new  members.  In  this  context,  NGOs  publicly  expressed  their 
concerns  that  the  appointments  would  only  follow  the  political  algorithm,  and  not  the 
conditions required by the law, and proposed professional standards for the assessment of 
potential candidates.219 Eventually, one of the appointments was political, while the other 
member appointed was a human rights expert.220  

A stalemate followed between the summer of 2009 and early 2010: due to expiry of the 
mandates of the Steering Board members beginning in May 2009, and subsequent delays 
and  failures  in  appointing  six  out  of  the  nine  members,  the  NCCD  was  unable  to  issue 
decisions in the last part of 2009. With only two appointments of former members renewed 
and  four  new  members,  some  of  whom  lacked  any  prior  experience  in  human  rights  or 
discrimination in general, the new composition of the NCCD was criticised by NGOs active 
in the field for being too political at the expense of the independence and professionalism 

217  The amended law prescribes a special procedure for nominating the candidates, their selection and 

appointment through vote by the plenum of the Parliament etc. 

218  Romania, Law 61/2013 for the amendment of the Government Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the 

prevention and the punishment of all forms of discrimination, 21 March 2013. 

219  Press release, 9 October 2006 and letters of October 2006 and February 2007 signed by twenty NGOs, 

available at: http://www.antidiscriminare.ro/ (15 October 2006). 

220  An informal coalition of NGOs working with victims of discrimination filed eight complaints with the 

Permanent Bureaus of the Parliament in relation to the candidates proposed for the six available positions 
vacated by November 2009.  

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
of the institution.221 NGOs protested that the procedural requirements were not observed 
in the case of some of the candidates and that some of the nominated candidates lacked 
the professional experience in the field of human rights required in the Anti-discrimination 
Law.  These  irregularities  were  dismissed  by  the  joint  parliamentary  committees,  which 
voted  in  favour  of  the  six  candidates  backed  by  the  political  parties  present  in  the 
Parliament,  in  accordance  with  the  political  algorithm.222  No  independent  candidate  was 
appointed. 

Following the resignation of one of the NCCD members in September 2011, no immediate 
steps were taken to appoint a new member. In June 2012, the special committees of the 
Senate and of the Chamber of Deputies finally convened in a joint meeting and voted. The 
three new appointments in 2012 met with mixed reactions as while two candidates were 
political appointees with limited relevant experience, the third is a well-established anti-
discrimination  expert,  whose  mandate  was  renewed  based  on  his  expertise  and 
commitment in spite of lack of political support. 

The  NCCD presents its  annual  activity report to the two  chambers of  the Parliament  for 
deliberation  and  approval,  in  accordance  with  Article  22(2).  The  budget  of  the  NCCD  is 
approved  within  the  state  budget.  The  resources  allocated  to  the  NCCD  have  gradually 
decreased in the last three years. The total figures of the budget vary in different official 
responses and reports and the amounts are approximate:  approximately EUR 1 012 000 
(RON  4 250 000)  in  2007,  approximately  EUR  1 500 000  (RON  6 303 000)  in  2008, 
approximately  EUR  1 084 000  (RON  4 554 000)  in  2009.  The  allocated  budget  for  2010 
was approximately EUR 980 000 (RON 4 118 000).223 The budget allocated for 2012 was 
approximately  EUR  996 744  (RON  4.286.000)  with  an  execution  of  94.14 %  of  the 
amount.224  The  budget  allocated  for  2013  was  approximately  EUR  1 025 000  (RON 
4.510.000)  with  an  actual  execution  of  97.41 %  (approximately  EUR  998 409).225  The 
annual report  for 2014  was not available by October 2015.  The annual report for 2013, 
released in 2014, mentions that the staff of the NCCD occupied a total of 89 posts, 69 of 
which  were  budgeted  for,  and  by  the  end  of  the  year  only  63  of  these  posts  were 
occupied.226 

c)  Grounds covered by the designated body/bodies 

The Romanian equality body (NCCD) deals with all grounds provided for in Article 2 of the 
Anti-discrimination Law: race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, social status, 
beliefs,  sex,  sexual  orientation,  age,  disability,  non-contagious  chronic  disease,  HIV-
positive status, belonging to a disadvantaged group or any other criterion.  

d) 

Competences of the designated body/bodies – and their independent exercise 

The mandate of the NCCD includes preventing discrimination on all grounds via awareness-
raising  and  education  campaigns,  mediating  between  the  parties  concerned,  providing 
support  for  victims  of  discrimination  including  assistance  to  victims,  investigating  and 

221  Press release 2010. 
222  Out of the 15 candidates, the six who were appointed represented various political groups in the Parliament: 
2 appointees for the Social Democrat Party, 1 for the Liberal Party, 1 for the Democratic Hungarian Union, 1 
for the Democrat Liberal Party and 1 for the group of minorities in the Parliament. 

223  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Raportul de activitate al Consiliului Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării 2010. Available 
at: http://cncd.org.ro/files/file/RAPORT%202010_web1.pdf . 

224  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Raportul de activitate al Consiliului Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării 2012. 

225  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Raportul de activitate al Consiliului Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării 2013. 

226  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Raportul de activitate al Consiliului Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării 2013. 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
sanctioning  discrimination,  including  ex  officio,  monitoring  discrimination,  as  well  as 
initiating  drafts  to  ensure  harmonisation  of  legal  provisions  with  the  equality  principle, 
preparing independent surveys, reports and recommendations.227 

One  of the  competences of the NCCD is to present to the  Government draft laws in the 
field of combating discrimination and to initiate drafts to ensure the harmonisation of other 
legal provisions with the equality and non-discrimination principles.228 

In  cases  of  petitions  in  respect  of  discriminatory  situations  generated  by  the  legislation 
(laws or ministerial orders) the NCCD recommends that the authorities amend the relevant 
legal provisions so that they comply with the principle of non-discrimination. 

In 2008, the Government adopted an Emergency Ordinance for the implementation of the 
principle of equal treatment between women and men in relation to access to and provision 
of goods and services and provision of goods and services, transposing the provisions of 
Directive 2004/113/EC  of 13  December 2004.229 In 2012, the Government modified the 
Law  on  Equal  Opportunities  and  Treatment  between  Women  and  Men  by  means  of 
Emergency  Ordinance  83/2012,  and  provided  specific  competences  in  Article  23  to  the 
Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection which overlap with those of the NCCD while 
still recognising the role of the NCCD, thus leading to further confusion. 

The  NCCD  established  two  territorial  offices  in  Buzău  and  in  Târgu  Mureş  to  expand  its 
assistance  services,  but  the  assistance  services  as  well  as  its  investigative  work  are 
jeopardised by the limited resources available as it is indicated but the gradual decrease 
of the institutional budget as compared to the increasing volume of work.  

e) 

Legal standing of the designated body/bodies 

In  Romania,  the  designated  body  does  not  have  legal  standing  to  bring  discrimination 
complaints  (on  behalf  of  identified  victim(s)  or  otherwise)  or  to  intervene  in  legal  cases 
concerning  discrimination.  According  to  Article  19(2)  and  Article  21  of  the  Anti-
discrimination Law, the NCCD can exercise its mandate upon request from an individual or 
a legal person or ex officio. The NCCD does not have legal standing to bring a case before 
the  courts  independently  of  a  person  making  an  individual  complaint,  in  which  case  the 
NCCD intervenes as expert, as provided in Article 27(3) of the Anti-discrimination Law (GO 
137/2000). 

Following the 2006 changes in the law, the NCCD must be subpoenaed as intervening party 
in all cases on grounds of the Anti-discrimination Law filed directly with the courts. This 
provision, set out in imperative terms in Article 27(3) of the law, contributed to straining 
further the already limited resources of the NCCD and generated a serious backlog, as the 
NCCD  not  only  had  to  deal  with  complaints  received  in  nome  proprio  but  also  to  issue 
opinions in civil cases filed before the courts. 

A 2008 decision of the Constitutional Court, in which the Court declared unconstitutional 
the capacity of the NCCD to find that a legislative provision triggered discrimination and to 
suspend it, raised the subsequent question of the possibility of the  NCCD  intervening in 
such cases. As the NCCD cannot currently petition the Constitutional Court, the mandate 

227  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), National Strategy for the Implementation of Measures for Preventing and Combating 
Discrimination(2007-2013) (Strategia natională de implementare a măsurilor de prevenire şi combatere a 
discriminării (2007-2013)). 

228  Art. 18 of the Anti-discrimination Law (GO 137/2000); also Art. 2 (1) (b), (c), (d) of Romania, Government 

Decision 1194/2001 regarding the organisation and functioning of the National Council for Combating 
Discrimination, as amended, 17 November 2003. 

229  Romania, Emergency Ordinance 61/2008 for the implementation of the principle of equal treatment between 
women and men in relation to access to goods and services and provision of goods and services 14 May 
2008. 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
of the NCCD might only be extended to include legal standing by legislative amendments. 
The  possibility  of  automatically  bringing  before  the  Constitutional  Court  cases  of 
discrimination  triggered  by  laws  or  ordinances  is  currently  provided,  in  accordance  with 
Article 146 d) of the Constitution, to the Ombudsman (Avocatul Poporului). 

f) 

Quasi-judicial competences 

In Romania, the NCCD is a quasi-judicial institution. The 2006 amendments to the Anti-
discrimination  Law  incorporated  enhanced  guarantees  of  independence  by  specifically 
stating  that  the  NCCD  is  an  autonomous  public  authority  under  the  control  of  the 
Parliament  which  maintains  its  independence  in  carrying  out  its  mandate.  According  to 
Article  17,  in  exercising  its  mandate  the  NCCD  ‘carries  out  its  activity  independently, 
without being hindered or influenced by other institutions or public authorities’.230 

The NCCD is a specialised body and its role as a quasi-judicial institution was recognised 
by the Romanian Constitutional Court in its Decision 1096 of 15 October 2008, in which it 
ruled in favour of the NCCD. The Constitutional Court repeatedly affirmed the legality of 
the  NCCD  and  its  status  of  special  administrative  jurisdiction,  an  optional  forum  in 
addressing  cases  of  discrimination,  and  confirmed  that  proceedings  before  the  NCCD  as 
provided  by  Article  21(4)  are  constitutional.  The  Court  found  that  the  NCCD  is  an 
administrative  body  with  a  jurisdictional  mandate,  which  incorporates  the  elements  of 
independence  required  for  administrative-judicial  activities  and  which  observes  the 
provisions of Articles 124 and 126 (5) of the Constitution on the prohibition of establishing 
extraordinary tribunals. 

Victims of discrimination or NGOs can choose between filing a complaint with the NCCD or 
with the courts. A procedure before the NCCD does not have a suspensive effect as to the 
time  limit  to  file  a  complaint  before  the  civil  courts.  Decisions  of  the  NCCD  impose 
administrative sanctions (fines or warnings) which can be appealed before the  courts  of 
law  under  administrative  law  provisions.  In  the  absence  of  a  mechanism  for  monitoring 
compliance with NCCD decisions, it is impossible to assess the impact of these decisions. 
However,  the  visibility  and  prestige  of  the  NCCD  increased  exponentially,  from  2007 
onwards,  as  it  issued  exemplary  decisions  against  important  politicians  (e  g.  President 
Traian Băsescu, former Prime Minister Călin Popescu Tăriceanu, former Minister of Foreign 
Affairs Adrian Cioroianu, current Minister of Foreign Affairs Theodor Baconschi, head of the 
România Mare party Corneliu Vadim Tudor) and in a number of  sensitive cases (decision 
on display of religious symbols in classrooms in public education, decision regarding blood 
safety  in  regard  to  LGBT  donors,  decisions  against  discriminatory  statements  made  by 
journalists or politicians, decisions on segregation in education of Roma children or children 
and young people living with HIV/AIDS, decisions regarding discriminatory incidents during 
football games). 

g) 

Registration by the body/bodies of complaints and decisions 

In Romania, the NCCD registers the number of complaints and decisions (by ground, field, 
type of discrimination, etc.). These data are available to the public in its annual activity 
reports. The NCCD annual report for 2011 mentions for the first time the number of cases 
before the civil courts in which it was called as an expert as required in Article 27 of the 
Anti-discrimination Law, referring to a total of 916 cases. The same report states that in 
2011 the civil courts found discrimination in 678 cases (the total number of such decisions 
in cases before both courts of first instance and courts of appeal) and rejected 768 cases 
(this number reflects both cases filed directly before the courts and cases decided by the 

230  Romania, Governmental Ordinance 137/2000 regarding the prevention and the punishment of all forms of 
discrimination (Ordonanța de Guvern 137/2000 privind prevenirea și sancționarea tuturor formelor de 
discriminare), Art17.  

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
NCCD  subsequently  brought  before  the  courts  for  review).231  In  2012,  the  NCCD  was 
present as expert in 556 cases initiated directly before the civil courts.232 

Information for 2014 is not available as at 15 August 2015. 

h) 

Roma and Travellers 

While the National Strategy for Improving the Situation of Roma 2001-2010 provided that 
Roma were to be represented on the Steering Board of the National Council on Combating 
Discrimination,  233  the  2011  Strategy  of  the  Romanian  Government  on  the  Inclusion  of 
Romanian  Citizens  Belonging  to  the  Roma  Minority  for  the  period  2012-2020  (Roma 
Inclusion Strategy) does not include similar provisions.234 

Roma  representation  was  achieved  through  the  appointment  of  a  Roma  activist  as  a 
member of the Steering Board but the 2006 changes to appointment procedures, leaving 
nomination  and  selection  of  board  members  to  the  Parliament,  makes  further  Roma 
appointments difficult, unless political support is secured. In April 2010, a representative 
of  the  Roma  Party,  the  entity  representing  the  Roma  minority  in  the  Parliament,  was 
appointed to the Steering Board on the basis of the political algorithm. 

The National Strategy for the Implementation of Measures for Preventing and Combating 
Discrimination (2007-2013) (Strategia Naţională de Implementare a Măsurilor de Prevenire 
şi Combatere a Discriminării (2007-2013)) published in October 2007, sets out the main 
principles, priorities and areas of intervention of the NCCD for 2007-2013, and mentions 
Roma-related  objectives  without  making  Roma-related  themes  a  priority  of  the  NCCD’s 
work.235 

The official position of the NCCD in relation to Roma is that ‘from the NCCD statistics it is 
clear that Roma are the most frequent victims of discrimination in all areas of social life: 
access to education (cases of segregation), equality in the labour market (refusal to employ 
Roma), access to services and public places (refusal to provide certain services, to allow 
access to public places such as clubs, pubs, restaurants, internet cafes), right to dignity 
(public  statements,  hostile  and  degrading  media  articles).’  Consequently,  the  NCCD 
launched  campaigns  for  combating  racism  and  offered  special  training  for  relevant 
categories such as civil servants, teachers, policemen, magistrates as well as persons who 
can provide support to the victims of discrimination.236 

231  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Raportul de activitate al Consiliului Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării 2011. 

232  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Raportul de activitate al Consiliului Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării 2012. 
233   Romania, Government Decision 522/2006 regarding the modification and adjustment of Government 
Decision 430/2001 regarding the Romanian Government’s Strategy on the Improvement of the Roma 
Situation, 19 April 2006, available at: 
http://www.mmuncii.ro/pub/imagemanager/images/file/Legislatie/HOTARARI-DE-GUVERN/HG430-
2001.pdf. 

234  Romania, Governmental Decision 1221 approving the Strategy of the Romanian Government on the 

Inclusion of Romanian Citizens Belonging to the Roma Minority for the period 2012-2020 (Hotărârea de 
Guvern pentru aprobarea Strategiei Guvernului Romaniei de incluziune a cetățenilor români aparținând 
minorității romilor pentru perioada 2012-2020), 14 December 2011, available at: 
http://www.anr.gov.ro/docs/MO6bis.pdf.  

235   Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), National Strategy for the Implementation of Measures for Preventing and Combating 
Discrimination (2007-2013) (Strategia natională de implementare a măsurilor de prevenire şi combatere a 
discriminării (2007-2013)). 

236  NCCD official position communicated on 8 May 2008. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
8 

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES  

8.1 

 Dissemination  of  information,  dialogue  with  NGOs  and  between  social 
partners 

In  spite  of  a  serious  lack  of  human,  financial  and  material  resources  and  lack  of  solid 
institutional support from the political sphere or from the Government, the visibility of the 
NCCD  increased  significantly  after  2006,  due  to  the  way  in  which  the  NCCD  understood 
and carried out its mandate raise awareness.237 The NCCD carried out national awareness-
raising campaigns, organised cultural events, summer schools, courses and training, round 
tables  discussing  public  policies  and  affirmative  measures  targeting  children,  students, 
teachers,  civil  servants,  policemen,  gendarmes,  judges,  lawyers,  NGO  representatives, 
medical doctors and medical personnel.238 

The  NCCD  works  closely  with  NGOs  representing  various  vulnerable  groups,  carries  out 
joint  projects  and  consults  with  major  NGOs  in  developing  its  programmes  in  relevant 
areas.  Increasingly,  however,  NGOs  have  criticised  its  failure  to  engage  in  dialogue  on 
amending the Anti-discrimination Law in 2013 or participate in assessment of the NCCD 
2007-2013  National  Strategy  and  the  subsequent  development  of  a  new  strategy  going 
beyond 2014. 

Governmental  institutions  do  not  have  promoting  dialogue  with  social  partners  to  give 
effect to the principle of equal treatment within the workplace as an objective. Codes of 
practice,  codes  of  conduct,  measures  to  ensure  workforce  monitoring  and  diversity 
management  are  not  common  in  the  Romanian  context  and  the  NCCD  has  so  far  not 
assumed an active role in promoting these themes. 

The National Agency for Roma is appointed to address Roma issues at national level. The 
impact of projects carried out with European funds, including the ESF, was not assessed. 

8.2 

 Compliance (Article 14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78) 

a)  Mechanisms 

As the principle of equality is clearly guaranteed in the Constitution, any contrary provisions 
would be unconstitutional and illegal under the Anti-discrimination Law as lex specialis. 

The constitutional provisions and the framework established by the Anti-discrimination Law 
prevail in relation to any clauses included in contracts or collective agreements, internal 
rules of procedure or rules governing the independent occupations and professions. 

b) 

Rules contrary to the principle of equality 

237   Gallup Organization Romania (2008), Percepții și atitudini ale populației României față de fenomenul de 

discriminare [Perceptions and Attitudes towards Discrimination], Bucharest, National Council for Combating 
Discrimination, available at: http://www.cncd.org.ro/files/file/Sondaj_discriminare_2008_CNCD.pdf. See 
also Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination(Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 
Discriminării), Department for International Relations, European Integration, Affirmative Policies, Studies 
and Monitoring (Directia Relatii Internationale, Integrare Europeană, Politici Afirmative, Studii si 
Monitorizare), Analiza de imagine a Consiliului Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării pentru primul 
semestru al lui 2006, available on request from the NCCD. 

238   Response from the NCCD, 4 March 2009. See also NCCD annual reports for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 

2010. 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Following  the  decisions  of  the  Romanian  Constitutional  Court  which  limited  both  the 
mandate of the NCCD239 and that of the civil courts in relation to discrimination generated 
by  legislative  norms,240  only  the  Constitutional  Court  may  review  discriminatory  norms 
containing  provisions  contrary  to  the  principle  of  equality.  As  legal  standing  before  the 
Constitutional  Court  is  limited  by  the  Constitution  to  specifically  mentioned  categories 
(courts  of  law  during  proceedings  or  the  Ombudsman),  the  Romanian  legal  framework 
currently has a de facto gap in protection against discrimination determined by legislative 
provisions which fall outside the scope of the EU acquis on anti-discrimination. No list of 
norms contrary to the principle of equality is compiled. 

In the past, the NCCD found that particular norms were contrary to the principle of equality 
and issued recommendations to the relevant authorities that they amend the legislation, 
but  without  any  adequate  follow-up.  Among  relevant  cases  which  were  reported  in  the 
media: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Two cases regarding restrictions applied to homosexual men in relation to donating 
blood. The measures proposed by the Ministry of Health (permanent exclusion of gay 
men from donating blood) were considered both inadequate and unnecessary, but as 
the initial decisions and recommendations were not observed, a second petition was 
necessary and the issue was tabled even after a second decision.241  
NCCD  Decision  No.  323  of  21  November  2006  issued  a  recommendation  to  the 
Ministry of Education that it draft a set of regulations to ensure the exercise of the 
right to education in equal conditions for all pupils; observe the right of parents and 
guardians to ensure the religious education of their children as they choose; observe 
the  secular  character  of  the  state  and  the  autonomy  of  religious  denominations; 
ensure  freedom  of  religion  and  beliefs  for  all  children  equally;  and  allow  for  the 
display  of  religious  symbols  only  during  classes  of  religion  or  in  places  devoted  to 
religious  education.  The  decision  was  partially  appealed  and  the  NCCD 
recommendations  were  upheld  by  the  Court  of  Appeal.  Nevertheless,  on  11  June 
2008, the High Court of Cassation and Justice accepted the final appeal submitted by 
the  Ministry  of  Education  and  a  coalition  of  religious  associations  and quashed  the 
decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeal.  As  the  initial  appeal  regarded  only  some  parts  of 
Decision 323, the decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice makes void only 
the  relevant  recommendations  and  the  Ministry  of  Education  is  still  supposed  to 
enforce  the  remaining  recommendations.  However,  the  Ministry  refuses  to  do  so, 
invoking the High Court decision. 
The  NCCD  position  regarding  the  three-tier  recognition  system  for  religious 
denominations established by the Law on Religious Freedom and the General Status 
of  Religions,  which  was  deemed  as  discriminating  against  smaller  or  more  recent 
religious minorities.242 
In its decision of 14 March 2006 in file 9165/22.12.2005, the NCCD found that the 
provisions  of  Article  30 1 C)  of  Law  248/2005  regarding  the  free  movement  of 
Romanian  citizens  abroad  discriminates  on  grounds  of  marital  status  against  the 
parents  of  minors  whose  parents  are  divorced  in  relation  to  the  right  of  a  parent 
granted custody of a child to remove the child from Romanian territory without the 
consent  of  the  other  parent.  After  finding  that  the  legal  provision  leads  to 

239   Romania, Constitutional Court (Curtea Constituţională), Decision 997, 7 October 2008, finding that 

Article 20 (3) of the Anti-discrimination Law (GO 137/2000), defining the mandate of the NCCD in relation 
to discrimination triggered by legislative provisions, is unconstitutional. 

240   Romania, Constitutional Court (Curtea Constituţională), Decision 818, 3 July 2008.  
241  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării) 

Decision 337, 21 November 2005, ACCEPT v. the Ministry of Health for the National Institute of 
Haematology, and Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru 
Combaterea Discriminării), Decision 260, 29 August 2007, ACCEPT v. the Ministry of Health, A second case 
was necessary because the Ministry of Health did not comply with the recommendation of the NCCD in its 
first decision. 

242  Romania, Law 489/200 on Religious Freedom and the General Status of Religions, 8 January 2007. 

102 

 
 
 
                                                 
discrimination,  the  NCCD  recommended  to  the  Ministry  of  Interior  that  it  take  the 
measures necessary to remedy this. The legal provision was not amended and there 
was no follow-up.243 

243  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Decision, 14 March 2006, RR petition against Law 248/2005. 

103 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
9  COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL 

By law, the NCCD is responsible for all matters in regard to anti-discrimination in Romania. 
However,  conflicts  of  competence  have  occurred,  with  the  courts  deciding  against  the 
NCCD  in  cases  regarding  discriminatory  language  used  in  the  media,  thus  the  National 
Audiovisual Council (Consiliul Naţional al Audiovizualului) is competent to decide whether 
an  advertising  clip  is  discriminatory  or  not  and  to  impose  appropriate  sanctions  in 
accordance with the Audio-visual Law, which is considered lex specialis in relation to the 
Anti-discrimination  Law.244  Governmental  Decision  1194/2001  on  the  organisation  and 
functioning of the NCCD provides in Article 2 for its mandate, and includes in paragraph L) 
‘collaboration  with  similar  entities,  non-governmental  human  rights  organisations  from 
other countries as well as international organisations in the field’.245  

Emergency  Ordinance  83/2012, adopted in December 2012 and aimed at amending the 
legislation on equal opportunities to bring it in line with European standards, introduces 
further confusion in its Article 23, as it creates overlapping competences with the NCCD 
when it mandates the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection to: 

a) 

b) 

c) 

receive complaints regarding infringement of legal provisions on the principle of equal 
opportunities and treatment between women and men and of non-discrimination on 
the ground of sex, by individuals, legal entities, public and private institutions, and 
convey  them  to  the  institutions  responsible  for  resolving  them  and  for  applying 
sanctions and ensuring counselling for victims under legal requirements; 
prepare reports, studies, analyses and make prognoses regarding enforcement of the 
principle of equality of opportunities and treatment between women and men in all 
fields of activity; 
ensure  exchange  of  information  with  the  European  bodies  in  the  field  of  equal 
opportunities between men and women.246 

In spite of the confusion, the Ministry does not replace the NCCD as equality body, as it 
has a duty to transfer complaints to the NCCD. The same Emergency Ordinance 83/2012 
introduces different definitions of discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment, the 
burden of proof and different ranges for the fines applicable in cases of discrimination on 
grounds of gender, though it mentions the NCCD as the responsible entity in Article 46. 

Notably,  the  NCCD  was  bypassed  when  choosing  a  national  implementation  body  for 
various programmes: for example in the case of the Year 2007 – European Year of Equal 
Opportunities  for  All  programme,  the  Government  arbitrarily  decided  in  favour  of  the 
National Agency for Equal Opportunities (NAEO), in spite of prior preparatory work and a 
draft strategy prepared by the NCCD together with NGOs working in support for vulnerable 
groups.247  In  addition,  when  appointing  the  national  implementation  body  for  the  Year 
2008 – European Year of Intercultural Dialogue programme, the Government decided in 
favour  of  a  newly  created  unit  within  the  Ministry  of  Culture  and  Religious 
Denominations.248  

However, in July 2010 the NAEO was abolished due to budgetary cuts249 and some of its 
competences were transferred to a newly created department within the Ministry of Labour, 

244  Romania, Bucharest Court of Appeal (Curtea de Apel București, Secția a VIII Contencios Administrativ și 

Fiscal), File 34845/2/2005, 18 January 2006. 

245  Romania, Governmental Decision 1194/2001 on organisation and functioning of the NCCD, 12 December 

2001. 

246  Romania, Emergency Ordinance EO 83/2012 on modifying Law 202/2002 on equal opportunities and 

treatment between women and men, 13 December 2012. 

247   The decision was taken at a government meeting on the 6 September 2006. See the complete 

documentation available at: http://www.mmuncii.ro/j33/index.php/ro/. 

248  Information available at: http://www.dialog2008.ro/home). 
249   Romania, Governmental Emergency Ordinance 68/2010, 1 July 2010, Art. 2 (1). 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Family and Social Protection  – the Department for  Equal Opportunities between Women 
and Men (DEOWM) (Direcţia Egalitate de Şanse între Femei şi Bărbaţi), which has limited 
competences.250 

The NCCD produced a National Plan on Combating Discrimination 2002-2006.251 This plan 
included a presentation of the institution, its governing principles, its target audience and 
the general objectives and measures to be taken. No assessment of the 2002-2006 plan 
is available and no other plan was adopted after its expiry. An external assessment of the 
NCCD 2007-2013 National Strategy was conducted by the NCCD with the support of the 
Council of Europe as part of the preparatory work and debates leading to the adoption of 
a new strategy in 2015. 

250   Romania, Governmental Decision No. 728/2010. 
251  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), National Plan on Combating Discrimination (Planul Național de Combatere a Discriminării, 
2002-2006), available at: http://www.policy.hu/flora/Prez_CNCD.htm. 

105 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICES 

At national level there are no assessments of governmental policies or initiatives that could 
be qualified as promising or best practices. 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES 

11.1 Potential breaches of the directives (if any) 

g. 

h. 

i. 

j. 

k. 

l. 

The limitation of the Anti-discrimination Law by the Romanian Constitutional Court in 
a series of decisions issued in 2008 and 2009 which limited both the mandate of the 
NCCD252  and  that  of  the  civil  courts  in  relation  to  discrimination  generated  by 
legislative  provisions,253  created  a  gap  in  the  effective  protection  against 
discrimination.  As  the  Constitution  provides  for  limited  standing  and  specific 
conditions  for  constitutional  review  and  the  Constitutional  Court  is  the  only  entity 
able to assess and decide when a legal provision conflicts with the equality principle 
enshrined  in  the  Constitution,  the  mandate  of  the  NCCD  should  be  adequately 
amended  to  include  the  possibility  of  it  automatically  bringing  before  the 
Constitutional Court cases of discrimination triggered by laws or ordinances, which is 
currently only provided, in accordance with Article 146 d) of the Constitution, to the 
Ombudsman  (Avocatul  Poporului).  Otherwise,  the  national  equality  body  (NCCD), 
faced with a legal provision falling outside the scope of European Union law which is 
incompatible  with  the  constitutional  anti-discrimination  principle  does  not  have  a 
mechanism, as indicated by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in C-
555/07 Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co. KG. of 19 January 2010, allowing 
it to decline to apply that particular legal provision . 
None  of  the  definitions  of  harassment  from  the  various  relevant  norms  (Anti-
discrimination Law, Equal Opportunities Law, Criminal Code) are in  full compliance 
with  the  definition  of  harassment  set  out  in  Article  2 (3)  of  the  directives,  as  the 
Romanian  provisions  fail  to  sanction  as  harassment  unwanted  conduct  with  the 
purpose of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, 
degrading,  humiliating  or  offensive  environment  and  sanction  only  harassment 
having the effect of violating the dignity of a person. 
The  use  of  the  word  ‘order’  instead  of  ‘instruction’  in  Romanian  might  lead  to  a 
restrictive interpretation of the instruction to discriminate, limiting the prohibition to 
hierarchical relations. While the NCCD interpretation complies with the meaning of 
the  directives,  interpreting  the  terminology  extensively,  the  courts  have  still  to 
determine the understanding of Article 2(2) and its limitations. 
The concept of reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities is not included 
in  the  Romanian  Anti-discrimination  Law  but  is  currently  defined  in  the  special 
legislation on the promotion and protection of the rights of persons with disabilities 
but without provision for any sanction. Though the UN Convention for the Rights of 
Persons  with  Disabilities  has  been  signed  and  ratified  by  Romania,  the  official 
translation includes major errors on key concepts such as ‘legal capacity’ which was 
translated as ‘legal assistance’ and there have been no attempts to further harmonise 
the legislation with the Convention. 
Though mentioned by the Anti-discrimination Law, the NCCD has not so far developed 
an operational mechanism to monitor infringements of the legislation or to monitor 
compliance  with its  decisions,  hence  it  is  difficult  to  assess  the  effectiveness  of  its 
mandate  and  the  effective,  proportional  and  dissuasive  character  of  the  sanctions 
issued. 
The NCCD practice of not issuing an administrative fine and only sanctioning cases 
of  discrimination  with  administrative  warnings  or  recommendations  erodes  the 
effective, proportionate and dissuasive character of the remedies. Warnings do not 
carry financial penalties.  

252  Romania, Constitutional Court (Curtea Constituţională),Decision 997, 7 September 2008, which found that 
Art. 20 (3) of the Anti-discrimination Law (GO 137/2000), defining the mandate of the NCCD in relation to 
discrimination triggered by legislative provisions, is unconstitutional. 

253  Romania, Constitutional Court (Curtea Constituţională), Decisions 818, 819 and 820, 3 July 2008. The 

Constitutional Court has concluded that the dispositions of Art. 1(2) e) and of Art. 27 of the Anti-
discrimination Law (Governmental Ordinance 137/2000) are unconstitutional, to the extent that they are 
understood as implying that the courts of law have the authority to nullify or to refuse the application of 
legal norms where they consider that such norms are discriminatory. 

107 

 
 
 
                                                 
m.  The institutional paralysis of the NCCD between the summer of 2009 and April 2010, 
caused  by  the  failure  of  the  Parliament  to  appoint  new  members  to  the  Steering 
Board of the NCCD due to a political standstill, and the protests from NGOs following 
nomination of six new members in April 2010, some of whom lacked the qualifications 
to comply with the legal criterion of relevant expertise, indicates that the appointment 
of NCCD Steering Board members by the Parliament as a guarantee of its institutional 
independence,  has  proved  in  practice  to  be  a  hindrance.  The  trend  towards 
politicisation of the institution was confirmed by two new  political appointments in 
2012 and only one reappointment of an independent expert and by criticisms voiced 
even  from  within  the  NCCD.  The  politicisation  of  the  Steering  Board  was  visible  in 
several  areas:  controversial  decisions  in  cases  involving  politicians;  the  demise  of 
effective remedies in favour of recommendations lacking any legal power; the quality 
of  legal  reasoning;  and  the  number  of  NCCD  decisions  upheld  by  the  courts  after 
being appealed. 
An  Emergency  Ordinance  adopted  in  December  2012,  amending  the  law  on  equal 
opportunities, introduced different definitions of discrimination on grounds of gender, 
creating different legal regimes and generating confusion. 

n. 

11.2 Other issues of concern  

Disability, age and sexual orientation are not established as protected grounds in Article 16 
of  the  Romanian  Constitution.  Notably,  disability  is  not  specifically  mentioned  as  a 
protected ground in the special clauses in the Anti-discrimination Law defining prohibition 
of discrimination in employment (Articles 5-8), access to public services – social protection, 
advantages,  goods  and  services,  housing  (Article  10),  education  (Article 11),  forced 
displacement (Article 13), access to public places (Article 14). This is an omission in the 
law which is, however, rectified in practice by the NCCD by interpreting these articles in 
conjunction with the general definitions of discrimination including the full list of protected 
grounds in Article 2.  

Romanian  anti-discrimination  legislation  applies  to  an  open-ended  list  of  criteria  of 
protection  going  beyond  those  provided  by  the  directives  and  the  scope  of  the  Anti-
discrimination Law is applicable to areas beyond those set out in the directives. The open 
list of protected grounds also gives rise to some disadvantages, as the ever-expanding and 
tailored list of criteria deemed as being in need of protection turns the anti-discrimination 
principle into a general equality and fairness principle. 

The  fact  that  Romanian  legal  provisions  go  beyond  the  minimum  requirements  of  the 
directives  and,  most  importantly,  place  emphasis  on  ‘the  right  to  dignity’  in  combating 
discrimination, increases the effectiveness of the anti-discrimination mechanisms and helps 
to  increase  the  visibility  of  the  NCCD  and  awareness  of  the  provisions  of  the  Anti-
discrimination  Law.  The  ‘right  to  dignity’  has  been  invoked  in  cases  where  the  legal 
provisions  were  not  fully  sufficient,  as  was  the  case  in  regard  to  the  dividing  wall 
segregating  the  Roma  community  in  Baia  Mare.254  However,  in  relation  to  the  right  to 
dignity, a worrying practice is being developed by the NCCD and by the courts, requiring 
claimants to produce evidence that defendants actually had an intention to discriminate. 

The NCCD practice in attempting to find a balance between protection of the principle of 
equality  and  non-discrimination  and  freedom  of  expression  is  not  coherent,  and 
contradictory  results  are  often  reached  in  similar  cases.  The  Anti-discrimination  Law 
provides in Article 2(8) that its provisions cannot be interpreted so as to limit freedom of 
expression, freedom of opinion and the right to information. However, although the NCCD 
usually invokes the case law of the ECtHR in understanding the limitations of freedom of 

254  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Decision No. 439, file no. 4A/2011, 15 November 2011 ex officio v. Cherecheş. 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
expression,  the  practice  of  the  NCCD  and  of  the  courts  is  not  unitary  and  many 
discriminatory statements, in particular those made by politicians, remained unpenalised. 

The  budget  of  the  NCCD  was  initially  less  than  EUR  200 000  in  2002,  its  first  year  of 
operation, and gradually increased until it reached a peak of EUR 1.7 million in 2008, when 
a significant decline began. In 2009, the budget was reduced by 30 %. Another budgetary 
cut of 10 % was applied in 2010. The information available for 2013 shows a total executed 
budget of less than approximately EUR 1 million; data for 2014 are not available as at May 
2015. According to the NCCD, up to 2011 no new staff were recruited for the institution 
due to the budgetary cuts and due to a general ban on taking on new employees in the 
public  system,  issued  as  a  part  of  the  reform  package  introduced  in  response  to  the 
financial  crisis.  In  addition,  some  of  the  activities  of  the  NCCD  (e.g.  investigations  and 
awareness  campaigns)  have  been  affected  by  lack  of  funds  or  delays  in  making  funds 
available due to difficult financial procedures. The evolution of the NCCD budget between 
2002 and 2011, as officially presented in the 2011 annual report of the NCCD, confirms 
the  tendency  towards  steep  decline,  decreasing  by  almost  10 %  compared  with  the 
previous  year  and  by  40 %  compared  to  2008,  the  year  with  the  largest  institutional 
budget.255 A slight increase was registered in 2012, when the budget rose back to the level 
of 2010.256 

255  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Raport de activitate 2011. 

256  Romania, National Council for Combating Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea 

Discriminării), Raport de activitate 2012. 

109 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS 

- 

- 

On 1 February 2014, Law 286/2009  on the New  Criminal Code  entered into force, 
including: Article 77 defining discriminatory intent as an aggravating circumstance; 
Article 223 criminalising sexual harassment in work-related situations; Article 282 on 
torture by a civil servant on grounds of discrimination; Article 297 on abuse in the 
exercise  of  authority  (function);  Article  369  defining  incitement  to  hatred  and 
discrimination; and Article 381 on infringing the enjoyment of religious freedom. 
In  November  2014,  discussions  on  external  assessment  of  the  previous  NCCD 
strategy  and  on  the  development  of  a  national  equality  strategy  for  2015-2020 
began. 

12.1 Legislative amendments 

- 

No legislative amendments are reported for 2014. 

12.2 Case law 

Name of the court: Bucharest Court of Appeal 
Date of decision: 23 December 2013 
Name of the parties: ACCEPT, NCCD 
Reference number: Decision no. 4180/2013 of 23 December 2013 
Address of the webpage: http://lege5.ro/Dosar/gi4dembug5pte/12562-2-2010-curtea-
de-apel-bucuresti (procedural history of the decision is available electronically) 
Brief  summary:  ACCEPT  requested  that  the  decision  of  the  NCCD  in  the  Becali  case, 
leading to CJEU case C-81/12, be annulled and that a declaration that the relevant facts 
fall within the scope of employment matters be made and that it may be assumed from 
proven  facts  that  there  had  been  discrimination  and  finally,  that  a  fine  be  imposed  as 
adequate  remedy  instead  of  a  warning.  The  Court  of  Appeal  denied  the  appeal  as 
unfounded and confirmed the NCCD argument that football recruitment is not employment, 
that  the  burden  of  proof  had  not  been  met  by  the  claimant  and  that  the  statements 
represented a ‘personal position’ of George Becali ‘in a context associated with his religious 
beliefs  and  had  not  been  undertaken  by  the  club’.  In  regard  to  the  request  to  find  the 
administrative warning an inadequate remedy, the Court of Appeal decided that the NCCD 
warning was an adequate sanction given the context in which the deed was perpetrated – 
‘respectively,  a  purely  journalistic  initiative,  the  statements  being  provoked  by  the 
journalist  with  the  clear  purpose  of  obtaining  the  private  position  of  the  interviewee, 
correlative to exercising the right to free speech in relation to a subject which was in an 
abstract  relation  with  the  field  of  employment,  as  well  as  the  lack  of  any  subsequent 
effects, due to the fact that no effective refusal of hiring on discriminatory grounds was 
substantiated.’ The decision of the Court of Appeal was challenged before the High Court 
of Cassation and Justice. 

Name of the court: Cluj Tribunal 
Date of decision: 30 December 2013 
Name of the parties: Long list of claimants, Cluj Mayor 
Reference number: File 8721/117/2011 
Address  of  the  webpage:  http://lege5.ro/Dosar/ge3tknbwgiztsxzrge3q/8721-117-
2011-a1-tribunalul-cluj  
Brief  summary:  Forcible  eviction  of  350  Roma  in  December  2010  by  local  authorities 
without adequate notice and consultation and relocation to the outskirts of the city on the 
city rubbish dump in inadequate housing conditions. The eviction was sanctioned by the 
NCCD with a fine of approximately EUR 1 800 (RON 8 000). In a parallel civil law suit the 
Cluj Tribunal accepted the argument of the complainants that the eviction decision issued 
by the Cluj-Napoca Mayor was illegal, obliging the local authorities to pay moral damages 
of EUR 2 000 to each  complainant and ordered the local authorities to ensure adequate 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
housing  for  the  complainants.  The  Cluj  Court  of  Appeal  also  decided  in  favour  of  the 
claimants and found the eviction order illegal. 

Name of the court: High Court of Cassation and Justice 
Date of decision: 13 June 2014 
Name of the parties: ACCEPT on behalf of BG, NCCD 
Reference number: Decision 2805 of 13 June 2014 
Address of the webpage: -  
Brief  summary:  BG  filed  a  complaint  of  harassment  on  grounds  of  presumed  sexual 
orientation with the NCCD, which stated in its Decision no. 108 of 28 March 2012 that it is 
not competent rationae materiae to examine a complaint against a police station, due to 
the  hierarchical  system  of  organisation  of  the  police.  The  victim,  supported  by  ACCEPT 
Romania, challenged this decision before the Bucharest Court of Appeal (Curtea de Apel 
Bucuresti) which rejected the case in September 2012. The High Court of Cassation and 
Justice  admitted  the  appeal  filed  by  BG  with  the  support  of  ACCEPT  Romania,  annulled 
NCCD Decision no. 108 of 28 March 2012 and ordered the NCCD to resolve the complaint 
adequately. The decision is final. As a result, the NCCD reopened its proceedings. 

Name of the court: High Court of Cassation and Justice 
Date of decision: 2805 
Name of the parties: PAD, NCCD 
Reference number: Decision no. 1438 in file 3683/2/2012 hearings from 20 March 2014 
Address  of 
the  webpage:  http://legeaz.net/spete-contencios-inalta-curte-iccj-
2014/decizia-1438-2014  
Brief  summary:  The  complainant  filed  a  petition  with  the  NCCD  in  2012  against  a 
condition  published in  a  job  advertisement  issued  by  the  Mayor  of  Valea  Crișului  village 
and  the  National  Agency  for  Public  Servants,  requiring  candidates  to  have  a  good 
knowledge of Hungarian. In its Decision No 56 of 22 February 2012, the NCCD assessed 
the  particular  conditions  in  the  village  (more  than  20 %  ethnic  Hungarians)  and  the 
specificity  of  the  position  (secretary  of  the  local  council,  meaning  the  person  who  is  in 
direct contact with the population on administrative and legal issues) and decided that the 
linguistic  requirement  was  lawful.  The  Court  of  Appeal,  in  its  Decision  No  4847  of 
10 September 2012, decided  to uphold the NCCD decision. The High  Court of  Cassation 
and  Justice  (HCCJ)  quashed  the  NCCD  decision  and  concluded  that  the  requirement  of 
knowledge of Hungarian for the position of council secretary in the local administration in 
a village where there are more than 20% Hungarians does not amount to a determining 
occupational  requirement  as  provided  by  Article  9  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Law  (GO 
137/2000),  but  instead  amounts  to  discrimination  in  relation  to  the  Romanian-speaking 
population,  as  argued  by  the  complainant.  Consequently,  the  HCCJ  annulled  the  NCCD 
decision. The HCCJ decision is final. 

No data for 2014 is available as at 15 August 2015 to assess trends and patterns in 2014 
in cases brought by Roma and Travellers. 

111 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: TABLE OF KEY NATIONAL ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION 

Please list below the main transposition and anti-discrimination legislation at both 
federal and federated/provincial level. 

Country: Romania 
Date: May 2015 

of 
Title 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)   

of 
Title 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)   

Title 
of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)   

Title of the law: Ordinance (GO) 137/2000 regarding the prevention and 
the punishment of all forms of discrimination 
Abbreviation: GO 137/2000 
Date of adoption: 31.08.2000 
Entry into force:30.10.2000 
Latest amendments: 25.06.2013  
Web link: http://cncd.org.ro/?language=en 
Grounds  protected:  race,  nationality,  ethnic  origin,  language,  religion, 
social  status,  beliefs,  sex,  sexual  orientation,  age,  disability,  non-
contagious  chronic  disease,  HIV  positive  status,  belonging  to  a 
disadvantaged group or any other criterion. 
Civil/administrative 
Material scope: employment access to goods or services (including housing 
and health), social protection, social advantages, education, right to dignity 
Principal content: Prohibition of direct, indirect and multiple discrimination, 
harassment, instruction to discriminate and victimisation. Establishing the 
specialised body, the National Council on Combating Discrimination 
Title  of  the  law:  Law  340/2006  for  the  amendment  and  approval  of  Law 
202/2002 regarding equal opportunities between women and men 
Abbreviation: Law 340/2006 
Date of adoption: 25.07.2006 
Latest amendments; 4.12.2012 
Entry into force: 1.04.2002 
Web link: - 
Grounds covered: gender 
Administrative 
Material scope: Employment relations, access to goods and services 
Principal content: Prohibition of direct, indirect discrimination in the context 
of equal opportunities between women and men and of sexual harassment. 
Establishing a body mandated to develop equal opportunities policies, the 
National Agency for Equal Opportunities Between Men and Women. 
Title  of  the  law:  Law  on  the  protection  and  promotion  of  the  rights  of 
persons with a handicap 
Abbreviation: Law 448/2006 
Date of adoption: 06.12. 
2006 
Latest amendments; 1.11.2012 
Entry into force: 1.01.2008 
Web link: - 
Grounds covered: disability 
Administrative 
Material scope: Any field 
Principal content: Rights and duties of persons with disabilities. 
Obligations in relation to the accommodation of the needs of persons with 
disabilities.  Establishing  the  National  Authority  for  the  Persons  with  a 
Handicap. 

Title of the law: Labour Code 

112 

 
 
 
 
of 
Title 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)   

Abbreviation: Labour Code 
Date of adoption: 24.01.2003 
Latest amendments; 24.10.2012 
Entry into force: 1.03.2003 
Web link:-  
Grounds covered: gender, sexual orientation, genetic characteristics, age, 
national belonging, race, colour, ethnicity, religion, political option, social 
origin, disability, family situation or responsibility, trade union membership 
or activity 
Administrative 
Material scope: Employment 
Principal content: direct and indirect discrimination 

113 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS 

Country: Romania 
Date: May 2015 

Instrument  Date of 

signature 
(if not 
signed 
please 
indicate) 
Day/month
/year 

Date of 
ratification (if 
not ratified 
please indicate) 
Day/month/yea
r 

Derogations
/ 
reservations 
relevant to 
equality and 
non-
discriminatio
n 

Right of 
individual 
petition 
accepted? 

European 
Convention 
on Human 
Rights 
(ECHR) 

Protocol 12, 
ECHR 

Revised 
European 
Social 
Charter 

International 
Covenant on 
Civil and 
Political 
Rights 
Framework 
Convention 
for the 
Protection of 
National 
Minorities 
International 
Covenant on 
Economic, 
Social and 
Cultural 
Rights 
Convention 
on the 
Elimination 
of All Forms 
of Racial 

7.10.1993 

20.06.1994 

No. 

Yes. 

4.11.2000 

17.07.2006 

No. 

N/A 

14.05.1997 

07.05.1999 

No. 

27.06.1968 

9.12.1974 

Yes. 

01.02.1995 

11.05.1995 

No. 

Ratified 
collective 
complaints 
protocol? 
No. 
Yes. 
No 
interstate 
complaints 
(art.41) 
N/A 

27.06.1968 

9.12.1974 

Yes. 

N/A 

N/A 

15.09.1970 

Yes. 

Yes. 

114 

Can this 
instrumen
t be 
directly 
relied 
upon in 
domestic 
courts by 
individual
s? 
Slow 
process of 
recognition 
of the 
relevant 
case law of 
the ECHR 
by the 
courts and 
legal 
profession. 
Not 
relevant 

Not 
relevant 

Not 
relevant 

Not 
relevant 

Not 
relevant 

Not 
relevant 

 
 
 
Instrument  Date of 

signature 
(if not 
signed 
please 
indicate) 
Day/month
/year 

Date of 
ratification (if 
not ratified 
please indicate) 
Day/month/yea
r 

Derogations
/ 
reservations 
relevant to 
equality and 
non-
discriminatio
n 

Right of 
individual 
petition 
accepted? 

Discriminatio
n 

Convention 
on the 
Elimination 
of 
Discriminatio
n Against 
Women 
ILO 
Convention 
No. 111 on 
Discriminatio
n 
Convention 
on the 
Rights of the 
Child 
Convention 
on the 
Rights of 
Persons with 
Disabilities  

4.09.1980 

07.01.1982 

No. 

N/A 

N/A 

11.05.1973 

No. 

N/A 

26.01.1990 

28.09.1990 

No. 

N/A 

26.09.2007 

11.11.2010 

No. 

N/A 

Can this 
instrumen
t be 
directly 
relied 
upon in 
domestic 
courts by 
individual
s? 

Not 
relevant 

Not 
relevant 

Not 
relevant 

Not 
relevant 

115 

 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D
S
-
0
2
-
1
5
-
9
4
0
-
3
A
-
N

[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]

PDF 

ISBN: 978-92-79-53376-1  doi: 10.2838/358291