Papers by Romanita Iordache
Routledge eBooks, Dec 7, 2018
This report is created by The Euroepan Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and consists in ... more This report is created by The Euroepan Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and consists in two parts: this one is the first part and it contains a comprehensive comparative legal analysis of the situation in the European Union Member States with regard the implementation of the European directive against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Discrimination and its Sanctions – Symbolic vs. Effective Remedies in European Anti-discriminatio... more Discrimination and its Sanctions – Symbolic vs. Effective Remedies in European Anti-discrimination Law - The right to a remedy is embedded in the very affirmation of the right to non-discrimination. The literature and activists alike claim that the growing concern for substantive equality has led to a redefinition of the term ‘sanctions’, so that this concept no longer only has the narrow sense of punitive, penalising measures, but also embraces remedies that provide relief and redress for victims of discrimination and address discrimination at societal level. Still, is this really the case? While the Equality Directives clearly spell out the duty of the Member States to lay down rules on sanctions applicable to infringements of national provisions adopted pursuant to these Directives and the duty to take all measures necessary to ensure that anti-discrimination provisions are fulfilled, the Equality Directives do not establish the nature of the remedy. Recently, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provided guidance in the 2013 Asociaţia ACCEPT v Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării, C-81/12 (Asociaţia Accept), in which the Luxembourg Court noted that a purely symbolic sanction cannot be regarded as compatible with the correct and effective implementation of the non-discrimination principle and that this requirement should apply individually to each remedy made available.
Orthodox Religion and Politics in Contemporary Eastern Europe, 2018
European Journal of Public Health, 2014
Practitioner Guide belongs to the series of books, prepared within the frameworks of internationa... more Practitioner Guide belongs to the series of books, prepared within the frameworks of international project of the Open Society Institute. The book elucidates the rights and duties of patients and medical workers, forms and ways of these rights protection on the international, regional and national levels. The issues of forensic examinations fulfillment are also highlighted in the manual. The book contains a number of constitutional provisions, legal norms of laws and bylaw acts regulating every right and duty separately together with practical examples of their observance and violation, as well as examples from legal practice and useful pieces of advice as regards understanding and application of law. Appendixes contain samples of procedural documents, list of literature used, reference information and glossaries (international and national). The edition is designed for lawyers, who are interested in protection of human rights in health care sphere as well as for representatives of law enforcing bodies. It can be also useful for health care system workers, participators of the insurance market services, students, postgraduates, scientists and lecturers of medical and law educational institutions, law enforcing organizations and physical persons who are interested in legal regulation of the health care sphere. All practitioner guides are displayed on the web site www.healthrights.org.
Religion and Human Rights, 2013
In January 2013, the Romanian Law on Religious Freedom and the General Status of Religious Denomi... more In January 2013, the Romanian Law on Religious Freedom and the General Status of Religious Denominations reached five years of implementation—the right time to assess the quality of the law, its fairness and enforceability, the way it responded to foreseeable challenges but, most importantly, to unexpected ones. Though, at the time of its adoption, law-makers, practitioners and religious denominations alike considered the law a working compromise doomed to be amended soon, no amendments were made so far. In spite of criticisms concerning the over-restrictive three tier system of registration for religious entities, voiced during the adoption process and subsequently, the biggest challenge for the law came however from a different direction through a little known case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in January 2012 and referred to the Grand Chamber in July 2012. The domestic proceedings as well as the chamber judgment in Sindicatul Păstorul Cel Bun v. Romania highlight ...
Discrimination and its Sanctions – Symbolic vs. Effective Remedies in European Anti-discriminatio... more Discrimination and its Sanctions – Symbolic vs. Effective Remedies in European Anti-discrimination Law - The right to a remedy is embedded in the very affirmation of the right to non-discrimination. The literature and activists alike claim that the growing concern for substantive equality has led to a redefinition of the term ‘sanctions’, so that this concept no longer only has the narrow sense of punitive, penalising measures, but also embraces remedies that provide relief and redress for victims of discrimination and address discrimination at societal level. Still, is this really the case? While the Equality Directives clearly spell out the duty of the Member States to lay down rules on sanctions applicable to infringements of national provisions adopted pursuant to these Directives and the duty to take all measures necessary to ensure that anti-discrimination provisions are fulfilled, the Equality Directives do not establish the nature of the remedy. Recently, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provided guidance in the 2013 Asociaţia ACCEPT v Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării, C-81/12 (Asociaţia Accept), in which the Luxembourg Court noted that a purely symbolic sanction cannot be regarded as compatible with the correct and effective implementation of the non-discrimination principle and that this requirement should apply individually to each remedy made available.
In January 2013, the Romanian Law on Religious Freedom and the General Status of Religious Denomi... more In January 2013, the Romanian Law on Religious Freedom and the General Status of Religious Denominations reached five years of implementation—the right time to assess the quality of the law, its fairness and enforceability, the way it responded to foreseeable challenges but, most importantly, to unexpected ones. Though, at the time of its adoption, law-makers, practitioners and religious denominations alike considered the law a working compromise doomed to be amended soon, no amendments were made so far. In spite of criticisms concerning the over-restrictive three tier system of registration for religious entities, voiced during the adoption process and subsequently, the biggest challenge for the law came however from a different direction through a little known case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in January 2012 and referred to the Grand Chamber in July 2012. The domestic proceedings as well as the chamber judgment in Sindicatul Păstorul Cel Bun v. Romania highlight that the principle of religious autonomy and the relation between state and Church still need to be defined and enforced in the Romanian context.1
Osterreichisches Archiv Fur Recht Religion, 2007
The European Journal of Public Health
European Equality Law Review, 2019
In the changing tides of illiberalism eroding the space of fundamental freedoms and liberties, re... more In the changing tides of illiberalism eroding the space of fundamental freedoms and liberties, religiously motivated individuals increasingly invoke their religious ethos, or claim to be conscientious objectors, in the attempt to be exempted from the non-discrimination principle, while effectively denying or limiting the rights of others. Whether it is the therapist working for a relationship counselling service who refuses his services; the owner of a bed and breakfast, or of the cake shop or photo shop denying services to same-sex families, believing that such services would condone homosexuality; the health care professionals refusing to provide particular health services; or pharmacists who refuse to sell properly prescribed legal drugs to women or to trans persons – there is a common thread: those denying services or goods felt that to provide the services requested would be incompatible with their religious beliefs and asked to be exempted from the general principle of non-discrimination. Conscientious objection was developed in relation to mandatory military service, articulating the obligation of states to guarantee the effective exercise of the right to freedom of conscience. It was further revisited in the context of health services. However, not all religiously motivated conduct is recognised as deserving protection. This article seeks to shed light on the standards emerging at ECHR and EU level, to assess the challenging task of balancing the expression of religious ethos with the prohibition of discrimination – including discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity – or with women’s rights to personal integrity, life, health, and autonomy and concludes that, in spite of the conservative rhetoric, there is no emerging right to discriminate.
European Anti-Discrimination Law Review
Discrimination and its Sanctions – Symbolic vs. Effective Remedies in European Anti-discriminatio... more Discrimination and its Sanctions – Symbolic vs. Effective Remedies in European Anti-discrimination Law -
The right to a remedy is embedded in the very affirmation of the right to non-discrimination. The literature and activists alike claim that the growing concern for substantive equality has led to a redefinition of the term ‘sanctions’, so that this concept no longer only has the narrow sense of punitive, penalising measures, but also embraces remedies that provide relief and redress for victims of discrimination and address discrimination at societal level. Still, is this really the case? While the Equality Directives clearly spell out the duty of the Member States to lay down rules on sanctions applicable to infringements of national provisions adopted pursuant to these Directives and the duty to take all measures necessary to ensure that anti-discrimination provisions are fulfilled, the Equality Directives do not establish the nature of the remedy. Recently, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provided guidance in the 2013 Asociaţia ACCEPT v Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării, C-81/12 (Asociaţia Accept), in which the Luxembourg Court noted that a purely symbolic sanction cannot be regarded as compatible with the correct and effective implementation of the non-discrimination principle and that this requirement should apply individually to each remedy made available.
The analysis of the legislative process, content and effects of the 2006 Romanian Law on Religiou... more The analysis of the legislative process, content and effects of the 2006 Romanian Law on Religious Denominations and Religious Freedom, a law long-awaited for which generated vivid discussions in the Romanian society, forcing the authorities, the political actors, human rights groups and religious communities, as well as international actors, to spell out their vision of the relation between State and Church in the Romanian context, provides the opportunity to capture a picture of the tensions between E.U.-driven modernity and traditionalism manifested in a democratic society in which the dominant church reclaims its customary power-position. The legal analysis of the provisions of the law reveals the intertwining between the come-back of a majority Church, which is denouncing many of the core values of Western democracies, and the striving of the State to maintain the control over the religious life in return of benefits and financial advantages offered to traditional denominations. Religious new comers or non-traditional denominations are cemented in a second-class position.
In January 2013, the Romanian Law on Religious Freedom and the General Status of Religious Denomi... more In January 2013, the Romanian Law on Religious Freedom and the General Status of Religious Denominations reached five years of implementation-the right time to assess the quality of the law, its fairness and enforceability, the way it responded to foreseeable challenges but, most importantly, to unexpected ones. Though, at the time of its adoption, law-makers, practitioners and religious denominations alike considered the law a working compromise doomed to be amended soon, no amendments were made so far. In spite of criticisms concerning the over-restrictive three tier system of registration for religious entities, voiced during the adoption process and subsequently,
Books by Romanita Iordache
Routledge, 2019
In this edited volume, an assessment of Orthodox religion “in its own right” (Stoeckl 2016: 132) ... more In this edited volume, an assessment of Orthodox religion “in its own right” (Stoeckl 2016: 132) is demanded that, first, pays attention to different factions inside Eastern Orthodox religious communities and, second, addresses the agency of Orthodox communities in a more detailed perspective. In so doing, we have attempted to find new approaches for interpreting the interplay between Orthodox religion, politics and secularisation in contemporary Eastern Europe any beyond. For this the concept of ‘entangled authorities’ has been developed that draws attention to the fact that too many different ideas have been put into one single concept. On the one hand, there has been a tendency to focus on cooperation and entanglements; and to neglect unintended consequences and conflict. Instead we suggest looking at both, cooperation and conflict. On the other hand, at least three different forms of entanglements have been intermingled which have to be delineated and analysed separately: Personal, ideological and institutional entanglements. Only then, so it is suggested, will we be able to describe, analyse and grasp the interplay between Orthodox religion and politics more fully and more accurately.
Justice in Moldova/Justiția în Moldova by Romanita Iordache
Prin această cercetare ne‑am propus să aflăm care este situaţia egalităţii de gen în sistemul de ... more Prin această cercetare ne‑am propus să aflăm care este situaţia egalităţii de gen în sistemul de justiţie în Moldova, dacă există unele inegalităţi de gen şi care sunt posibilele cauze ale inegalităţilor de gen. Am avut în vedere în special care este gradul de reprezentare a femeilor şi bărbaţilor în sistemul judecătoresc, conform piramidei de vârstă, la diferite nivele profesionale şi de jurisdicţie, care sunt condiţiile de intrare în profesia de judecător şi de promovare în carieră, în ce fel se manifestă stereotipurile de gen în sistemul de justiţie şi dacă sistemul judecătoresc este echipat să facă faţă unor eventuale cazuri de hărţuire sau hărţuire sexuală. De asemenea, am cercetat în ce măsură și cum se asigură acomodarea sarcinii şi maternităţii şi echilibrul dintre viaţa profesională şi viaţa de familie, inclusiv disponibilitatea şi folosirea concediului de îngrijire a copilului de către angajaţii din sistemul
judiciar. Pentru fiecare domeniu de analiză, am inclus linii de acțiune ca pași concreți care pot fi adoptați pe termen scurt de autorități pentru a asigura egalitatea de substanță la nivel instituțional și a acomoda interesele și nevoile specifice ale judecătoarelor la locul de muncă. Raportul include și recomandări generale adresate Parlamentului, Ministerului de Justiție, CSM și INJ, președinților de instanțe, precum și donatorilor internaționali și societății civile interesate în susținerea îmbunătățirii proceselor interne de management al sistemului judecătoresc din Republica Moldova.
Nediscriminare/Non-discrimination by Romanita Iordache
În pofida existenței unui cadru legislativ care este în mare parte satisfăcător pentru asigurarea... more În pofida existenței unui cadru legislativ care este în mare parte satisfăcător pentru asigurarea egalității și a activității eficiente a Consiliului pentru Prevenirea și Eliminarea Discriminării și Asigurarea Egalității (CPPEDAE), mecanismul de combatere a discriminării în Republica Moldova nu este deplin funcțional – aceasta este una dintre concluziile raportului „Analiza practicii judiciare și a Consiliului Egalității privind egalitatea și nediscriminarea în Republica Moldova”, elaborat de Centrul de Resurse Juridice din Moldova (CRJM).
Romanița IORDACHE, autoarea raportului, subliniază că statutul neclar al CPPEDAE, inclusiv în relația cu instituțiile publice și sistemului judiciar, și lipsa competenței Consiliului de a sancționa faptele de discriminare sunt elemente care știrbesc din capacitatea statului de a reacționa prompt și a asigura remedii adecvate pentru victimele discriminării. În cazurile în care constată discriminarea, CPPEDAE este obligat să transmită materialele cauzelor către instanță, unde vor fi examinate din nou, în baza prevederilor Codului Contravențional, pentru stabilirea sancțiunii. „Acest detur ia timp, energie și se lovește uneori în instanțe de o înțelegere deficitară a legislației anti-discriminare ca lege specială”, se arată în raport.
Analiza jurisprudenței instanțelor în cauzele de discriminare demonstrează o aplicare din ce în ce mai bună a legislației anti-discriminare de către instanțe și o mai mare flexibilitate în stabilirea sancțiunilor, ambele fiind aspecte îmbucurătoare. Ca aspecte îngrijorătoare, analiza a identificat neînțelegerea caracterului de lege specială al Legii nr. 121 de către unii judecători, ceea ce duce la anularea multor hotărâri ale CPPEDAE, în cadrul procesului fiind analizate aspectele de procedură și doar superficial fondul cauzelor, fără a se lua în considerare impactul pe care hotărârile judecătorești îl pot avea asupra victimelor discriminării. Aplicarea problematică a legislației anti-discriminare este determinată și de lipsa unei curricule complete și de ateliere practice care ar trebui să fie dezvoltate de Institutul Național al Justiției, astfel încât să se asigure racordarea judecătorilor moldoveni la jurisprudența internațională în ceea ce privește discriminarea, instigarea la discriminare, hărțuirea, acomodarea rezonabilă.
Recomandările raportului vizează, în principal, completarea legislației nediscriminare și modificarea modalității de funcționare a CPPEDAE, asigurarea independenței și a funcționalității Consiliului, capacitarea Avocatului Poporului pentru a asigura asistență pentru victimele discriminării, capacitarea instanțelor prin dezvoltarea programului specific de formare profesională în domeniul egalității și nediscriminării.
Raportul a fost elaborat de către Romanița IORDACHE, expertă în domeniul egalității și nediscriminării, în cadrul proiectului „Promovarea supremației legii prin monitorizare de către societatea civilă”, implementat de Centrul de Resurse Juridice din Moldova cu suportul Agenției Statelor Unite pentru Dezvoltare Internațională (USAID).
Law no. 121 on Ensuring Equality was adopted in the Republic of Moldova in a regional and nationa... more Law no. 121 on Ensuring Equality was adopted in the Republic of Moldova in a regional and national context where Europeanization was the main element that mobilized the elites to adopt antidiscrimination rules. The adoption of this law, however, was merely the first step in the process of building an efficient mechanism to fight discrimination and promote equality. To ensure that the provisions of the law can turn from theoretical provisions into daily practice, it is necessary to empower the agencies mandated to enforce the law. Eight years after the adoption of Law no. 121, this report analyzes how the Equality Council and the courts of law interpret and apply the law, the relationship between various actors, and the opportunities and risks which emerged or are foreseeable.
The Equality Council has grown impressively, and its achievements are due to a large extent to its team. Their passion helped the organization to cope with the lack of resources and to overcome challenges in a transparent and open way. The organization managed to foster dialogue with the society by issuing individual and general recommendations, developing bold case law on sensitive subjects, and taking the lead in sounding the alarm when the public discourse swerved toward hatred and assaults on dignity during election periods and in times of crisis. The Council also proved its worth by acting as a mediator, coming up with general recommendations that offered systemic solutions to some forms of structural discrimination.
The analysis also highlights the risks—triggered by the Council’s limited mandate—in granting efficient remedies as, despite the Council’s power to find acts of discrimination, it cannot punish them. Instead, it has to refer notices of contravention and case files to competent courts of law, which perform a new examination and establish sanctions in light of the Contravention Code. This detour takes time and energy, and sometimes, courts have a poor understanding of the antidiscrimination law as a special law. Another identified risk was that the Council risks losing independence and efficiency because of insufficient resource allocation or the risk of politization due to attempts to make the Council a tool in political strife. Unfortunately, deficiencies in applying the procedural guarantees when issuing Council decisions have often led to the annulment of these decisions by the courts. An unexpected finding concerned the way some judges viewed the Equality Council and their ambiguity regarding its legal status as an administrative-jurisdictional authority, which lead them to take an incorrect and uncooperative stance, as they did not understand the importance of an efficient and loyal cooperation between institutions meant to protect the rule of law.
Uploads
Papers by Romanita Iordache
The right to a remedy is embedded in the very affirmation of the right to non-discrimination. The literature and activists alike claim that the growing concern for substantive equality has led to a redefinition of the term ‘sanctions’, so that this concept no longer only has the narrow sense of punitive, penalising measures, but also embraces remedies that provide relief and redress for victims of discrimination and address discrimination at societal level. Still, is this really the case? While the Equality Directives clearly spell out the duty of the Member States to lay down rules on sanctions applicable to infringements of national provisions adopted pursuant to these Directives and the duty to take all measures necessary to ensure that anti-discrimination provisions are fulfilled, the Equality Directives do not establish the nature of the remedy. Recently, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provided guidance in the 2013 Asociaţia ACCEPT v Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării, C-81/12 (Asociaţia Accept), in which the Luxembourg Court noted that a purely symbolic sanction cannot be regarded as compatible with the correct and effective implementation of the non-discrimination principle and that this requirement should apply individually to each remedy made available.
Books by Romanita Iordache
Justice in Moldova/Justiția în Moldova by Romanita Iordache
judiciar. Pentru fiecare domeniu de analiză, am inclus linii de acțiune ca pași concreți care pot fi adoptați pe termen scurt de autorități pentru a asigura egalitatea de substanță la nivel instituțional și a acomoda interesele și nevoile specifice ale judecătoarelor la locul de muncă. Raportul include și recomandări generale adresate Parlamentului, Ministerului de Justiție, CSM și INJ, președinților de instanțe, precum și donatorilor internaționali și societății civile interesate în susținerea îmbunătățirii proceselor interne de management al sistemului judecătoresc din Republica Moldova.
Nediscriminare/Non-discrimination by Romanita Iordache
Romanița IORDACHE, autoarea raportului, subliniază că statutul neclar al CPPEDAE, inclusiv în relația cu instituțiile publice și sistemului judiciar, și lipsa competenței Consiliului de a sancționa faptele de discriminare sunt elemente care știrbesc din capacitatea statului de a reacționa prompt și a asigura remedii adecvate pentru victimele discriminării. În cazurile în care constată discriminarea, CPPEDAE este obligat să transmită materialele cauzelor către instanță, unde vor fi examinate din nou, în baza prevederilor Codului Contravențional, pentru stabilirea sancțiunii. „Acest detur ia timp, energie și se lovește uneori în instanțe de o înțelegere deficitară a legislației anti-discriminare ca lege specială”, se arată în raport.
Analiza jurisprudenței instanțelor în cauzele de discriminare demonstrează o aplicare din ce în ce mai bună a legislației anti-discriminare de către instanțe și o mai mare flexibilitate în stabilirea sancțiunilor, ambele fiind aspecte îmbucurătoare. Ca aspecte îngrijorătoare, analiza a identificat neînțelegerea caracterului de lege specială al Legii nr. 121 de către unii judecători, ceea ce duce la anularea multor hotărâri ale CPPEDAE, în cadrul procesului fiind analizate aspectele de procedură și doar superficial fondul cauzelor, fără a se lua în considerare impactul pe care hotărârile judecătorești îl pot avea asupra victimelor discriminării. Aplicarea problematică a legislației anti-discriminare este determinată și de lipsa unei curricule complete și de ateliere practice care ar trebui să fie dezvoltate de Institutul Național al Justiției, astfel încât să se asigure racordarea judecătorilor moldoveni la jurisprudența internațională în ceea ce privește discriminarea, instigarea la discriminare, hărțuirea, acomodarea rezonabilă.
Recomandările raportului vizează, în principal, completarea legislației nediscriminare și modificarea modalității de funcționare a CPPEDAE, asigurarea independenței și a funcționalității Consiliului, capacitarea Avocatului Poporului pentru a asigura asistență pentru victimele discriminării, capacitarea instanțelor prin dezvoltarea programului specific de formare profesională în domeniul egalității și nediscriminării.
Raportul a fost elaborat de către Romanița IORDACHE, expertă în domeniul egalității și nediscriminării, în cadrul proiectului „Promovarea supremației legii prin monitorizare de către societatea civilă”, implementat de Centrul de Resurse Juridice din Moldova cu suportul Agenției Statelor Unite pentru Dezvoltare Internațională (USAID).
The Equality Council has grown impressively, and its achievements are due to a large extent to its team. Their passion helped the organization to cope with the lack of resources and to overcome challenges in a transparent and open way. The organization managed to foster dialogue with the society by issuing individual and general recommendations, developing bold case law on sensitive subjects, and taking the lead in sounding the alarm when the public discourse swerved toward hatred and assaults on dignity during election periods and in times of crisis. The Council also proved its worth by acting as a mediator, coming up with general recommendations that offered systemic solutions to some forms of structural discrimination.
The analysis also highlights the risks—triggered by the Council’s limited mandate—in granting efficient remedies as, despite the Council’s power to find acts of discrimination, it cannot punish them. Instead, it has to refer notices of contravention and case files to competent courts of law, which perform a new examination and establish sanctions in light of the Contravention Code. This detour takes time and energy, and sometimes, courts have a poor understanding of the antidiscrimination law as a special law. Another identified risk was that the Council risks losing independence and efficiency because of insufficient resource allocation or the risk of politization due to attempts to make the Council a tool in political strife. Unfortunately, deficiencies in applying the procedural guarantees when issuing Council decisions have often led to the annulment of these decisions by the courts. An unexpected finding concerned the way some judges viewed the Equality Council and their ambiguity regarding its legal status as an administrative-jurisdictional authority, which lead them to take an incorrect and uncooperative stance, as they did not understand the importance of an efficient and loyal cooperation between institutions meant to protect the rule of law.
The right to a remedy is embedded in the very affirmation of the right to non-discrimination. The literature and activists alike claim that the growing concern for substantive equality has led to a redefinition of the term ‘sanctions’, so that this concept no longer only has the narrow sense of punitive, penalising measures, but also embraces remedies that provide relief and redress for victims of discrimination and address discrimination at societal level. Still, is this really the case? While the Equality Directives clearly spell out the duty of the Member States to lay down rules on sanctions applicable to infringements of national provisions adopted pursuant to these Directives and the duty to take all measures necessary to ensure that anti-discrimination provisions are fulfilled, the Equality Directives do not establish the nature of the remedy. Recently, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provided guidance in the 2013 Asociaţia ACCEPT v Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării, C-81/12 (Asociaţia Accept), in which the Luxembourg Court noted that a purely symbolic sanction cannot be regarded as compatible with the correct and effective implementation of the non-discrimination principle and that this requirement should apply individually to each remedy made available.
judiciar. Pentru fiecare domeniu de analiză, am inclus linii de acțiune ca pași concreți care pot fi adoptați pe termen scurt de autorități pentru a asigura egalitatea de substanță la nivel instituțional și a acomoda interesele și nevoile specifice ale judecătoarelor la locul de muncă. Raportul include și recomandări generale adresate Parlamentului, Ministerului de Justiție, CSM și INJ, președinților de instanțe, precum și donatorilor internaționali și societății civile interesate în susținerea îmbunătățirii proceselor interne de management al sistemului judecătoresc din Republica Moldova.
Romanița IORDACHE, autoarea raportului, subliniază că statutul neclar al CPPEDAE, inclusiv în relația cu instituțiile publice și sistemului judiciar, și lipsa competenței Consiliului de a sancționa faptele de discriminare sunt elemente care știrbesc din capacitatea statului de a reacționa prompt și a asigura remedii adecvate pentru victimele discriminării. În cazurile în care constată discriminarea, CPPEDAE este obligat să transmită materialele cauzelor către instanță, unde vor fi examinate din nou, în baza prevederilor Codului Contravențional, pentru stabilirea sancțiunii. „Acest detur ia timp, energie și se lovește uneori în instanțe de o înțelegere deficitară a legislației anti-discriminare ca lege specială”, se arată în raport.
Analiza jurisprudenței instanțelor în cauzele de discriminare demonstrează o aplicare din ce în ce mai bună a legislației anti-discriminare de către instanțe și o mai mare flexibilitate în stabilirea sancțiunilor, ambele fiind aspecte îmbucurătoare. Ca aspecte îngrijorătoare, analiza a identificat neînțelegerea caracterului de lege specială al Legii nr. 121 de către unii judecători, ceea ce duce la anularea multor hotărâri ale CPPEDAE, în cadrul procesului fiind analizate aspectele de procedură și doar superficial fondul cauzelor, fără a se lua în considerare impactul pe care hotărârile judecătorești îl pot avea asupra victimelor discriminării. Aplicarea problematică a legislației anti-discriminare este determinată și de lipsa unei curricule complete și de ateliere practice care ar trebui să fie dezvoltate de Institutul Național al Justiției, astfel încât să se asigure racordarea judecătorilor moldoveni la jurisprudența internațională în ceea ce privește discriminarea, instigarea la discriminare, hărțuirea, acomodarea rezonabilă.
Recomandările raportului vizează, în principal, completarea legislației nediscriminare și modificarea modalității de funcționare a CPPEDAE, asigurarea independenței și a funcționalității Consiliului, capacitarea Avocatului Poporului pentru a asigura asistență pentru victimele discriminării, capacitarea instanțelor prin dezvoltarea programului specific de formare profesională în domeniul egalității și nediscriminării.
Raportul a fost elaborat de către Romanița IORDACHE, expertă în domeniul egalității și nediscriminării, în cadrul proiectului „Promovarea supremației legii prin monitorizare de către societatea civilă”, implementat de Centrul de Resurse Juridice din Moldova cu suportul Agenției Statelor Unite pentru Dezvoltare Internațională (USAID).
The Equality Council has grown impressively, and its achievements are due to a large extent to its team. Their passion helped the organization to cope with the lack of resources and to overcome challenges in a transparent and open way. The organization managed to foster dialogue with the society by issuing individual and general recommendations, developing bold case law on sensitive subjects, and taking the lead in sounding the alarm when the public discourse swerved toward hatred and assaults on dignity during election periods and in times of crisis. The Council also proved its worth by acting as a mediator, coming up with general recommendations that offered systemic solutions to some forms of structural discrimination.
The analysis also highlights the risks—triggered by the Council’s limited mandate—in granting efficient remedies as, despite the Council’s power to find acts of discrimination, it cannot punish them. Instead, it has to refer notices of contravention and case files to competent courts of law, which perform a new examination and establish sanctions in light of the Contravention Code. This detour takes time and energy, and sometimes, courts have a poor understanding of the antidiscrimination law as a special law. Another identified risk was that the Council risks losing independence and efficiency because of insufficient resource allocation or the risk of politization due to attempts to make the Council a tool in political strife. Unfortunately, deficiencies in applying the procedural guarantees when issuing Council decisions have often led to the annulment of these decisions by the courts. An unexpected finding concerned the way some judges viewed the Equality Council and their ambiguity regarding its legal status as an administrative-jurisdictional authority, which lead them to take an incorrect and uncooperative stance, as they did not understand the importance of an efficient and loyal cooperation between institutions meant to protect the rule of law.