Transcript Istvan Haller

Case study on
freedom of expression vs. right to
equality
Romania
Vienna
12-13.09.2011
Romanian legislation
Romanian Constitution
ROMANIAN STATE
Art. 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.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Art. 30
(1) Freedom of expression of thoughts, opinions, or beliefs, and freedom of any creation, by words, in
writing, in pictures, by sounds or other means of communication in public are inviolable.
(6) Freedom of expression shall not be prejudicial to the dignity, honour, privacy of a person, and to the
right to one's own image.
(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, territorial separatism, or public violence,
as well as any obscene conduct contrary to morality shall be prohibited by law.
Romanian Criminal Law
INSULT
Art. 204
(1) Offending the honor or the reputation of a person by using words, gestures or exposing that person to
mockery by any other means, shall be punished by fine.
(2) The same punishment shall be applied if a person is attributed a flaw, a disease or an infirmity, even
true, which should not be revealed.
(3) The penal action will start by complaint of the affected person. Agreement reached between parts
annuls the punishment.
CALUMNY
Art. 205
(1) Exposing publicly, in any ways, of a deed attributed to a person which, if proven true, would attract
penal, administrative or disciplinary action against that person or would expose them to public
contempt shall be punished by fine.
(2) The penal action will start by complaint of the affected person. Agreement reached between parts
annuls the punishment.
NATIONALIST CHAUVINISTIC PROPAGANDA
Art. 317
Any nationalist chauvinistic propaganda or incitement to racial or national hatred which does not
constitute an offence under Article 166 shall be punishable by a term of imprisonment of between 6
months and 5 years.
Government Ordinance no. 137/2000
on preventing and punishing all forms of discrimination
DEFINITIONS
Art. 2.
(5) Any behaviour that on the ground of race, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, social category,
beliefs, sex or sexual orientation, belonging to a disfavoured category, age, handicap, refugee or
asylum seeker status any other criterion aiming to create a humiliating, hostile, degrading or
offending atmosphere constitute harassment and it is sanctioned as contravention.
THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL DIGNITY
Art. 15
Under the ordinance herein, any public behaviour with a nationalistic-chauvinist character, any incitement
to racial or national hatred, or any behaviour aiming to prejudice a person’s dignity or to create a
hostile, degrading, humiliating or offending atmosphere, perpetrated against a person, a group of
persons or a community on account of race, nationality, ethnic group, religion, social category or
belonging to a disfavoured category, on account of beliefs, sex or sexual orientation shall constitute
contravention, unless the deed falls under the incidence of criminal law.
SANCTIONS
Art. 26
(1) The contraventions provided under articles 2 paragraph (5) and (7), 5-8, 10, 11 paragraphs (1), (3) and (6),
12, 13 paragraph (1), 14 and 15 of the ordinance herein shall be sanctioned with a lei 400 to lei 4000
fine if perpetrated against a natural entity or with a lei 600 to lei 8000 fine if perpetrated against a
group of persons or a community.
Interpretation
of the National Council to Combat Discrimination
Steering Board




Formed of 9 members having the rank of secretary of state, appointed in the plenary session by the
two Chambers of the Parliament;
Decision by vote, supermajority (majority of the entire membership)
Interpretation

no. 1: using the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights;

no. 2: priority of the freedom of expression except incitement against a group of persons

no. 3: priority of the freedom of expression any time
Political interference

‘blond hair politician’ – in the press regarding a ruling party politician – is discriminatory

‘Roma are physiologically criminals’ – minister of foreign affairs – is not discriminatory
Case study
Case of Ilie Năstase
THE FACTS OF THE CASE
Mr. Ilie Năstase, being in Paris, was asked by a journalist by phone from Romania what can be done with
Roma in France. He declared the followings: „You know what would I do if I had been the president of
Romania? I have been sent the gypsies in Harghita county, because in any case there are a lot of
Hungarians and only a dozen of Romanians. I would create conditions for them. In this way, it would
be changed the ethnic composition of the region. Ceuşescu made a mistake. He should made in
Harghita what the Russian done in Basarabia”
THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE NCCD
Complaint ex officio;
The result of the analyse:

the affirmations was not denied by Mr. Ilie Năstase;

the affirmations are related to the Roma ethnic group and not to delinquent individuals;

sending Roma people to Harghita county has the reason of changing the ethnic composition of
a region;

the affirmations represent a harassment and violates the right to dignity of two ethnic
communities (Roma and Hungarian), also represent a public incitement to displace persons in
order to change the ethnic composition of a region;

the affirmations exceed the freedom of expression by the jurisprudence of the ECHR, because
not contribute to any form of public debate capable of leading to an improvement of human
relations, but offends two communities;

sanction: fine of 600 Lei, taking into consideration that Mr. Ilie Năstase is a ‘country brand’.