UPR Sexual Rights Database

National Report:
Para 100) As for recommendation 15, taking into consideration the particular aspects met in the case of Romania, the measures adopted in order to prevent and combat child prostitution were considered as part of the whole legal framework concerning the protection and promotion of children rights.

Para 101) Between the main national authorities at central and local level cooperation mechanisms were established which allowed the approval of all necessary legal, administrative and educative measures meant to ensure an adequate protection of children against any form of trafficking, including their own parents as well.

Para 102) The 2007 Lanzarote Convention on the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse was ratified by Romania by Law no. 252 from 14th of December 2010, published in the Romanian Official Journal no. 885 of 29 December 2010. Furthermore, Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA was adopted. Romania participated in the negotiation process of the latter Directive, now being in the phase of transposing its provisions. The deadline for the transposition into domestic legislation is 18 December 2013.

Para 103) Government Decision no. 49/2010 approved a common methodology for the intervention in cases of children exploited or being at risk of being exploited through labour, children victims of trafficking in human beings and Romanian migrant children victims of other forms of violence found on the territory of other states.

National Report:
Para 68) Romania’s legal framework ensures the respect of human rights for all persons, without discrimination of any form, as provided by the Romanian Constitution that also mentions the respect and protection of private life. The antidiscrimination law in Romania (Ordinance no. 137/ 31 August 2000, Art. 2.1) is among the most extensive and inclusive, defining discrimination in a very large sense, including discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation. Since 2000 the law includes provisions on combating incitement to hatred and fighting all discrimination forms. Civil society organizations promoting the respect of the rights of LGBTI persons are active in Romania for watchdog, support and rights promotion activities for the LGBTI community in Romania/Bucharest especially. Yearly, Bucharest hosts the annual festival dedicated to support the rights of the LGBTI persons – Pride Week, including a March for Diversity – Pride parade.

UN Compilation:
Para 11) CRC was concerned that …, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex children … continued to face discrimination with regard to access to education, health care and employment, and to their standard of living.

Stakeholder Summary:
Para 7) Save the Children Romania (SCR) stated that Roma children, children … who had identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons continued to be discriminated in sectors such as education or health care.
Para 8) Equality and Human Rights Action Centre (ACTEDO) noted that Roma and LGBT+ persons had reportedly been target of hate speech.
Para 13) EU-FRA stated that the 2011 Civil Code prohibited same-sex partnership and marriage and prohibited the recognition of such partnership and marriages concluded in other countries. Despite this, ACCEP and ACTEDO reported on an initiative to hold a referendum in order to amend the Constitution to specify the legal definition of family as a marriage between a man and women. ACTEDO noted a high level of intolerance displayed towards LGBT+ persons by many public figures during the referendum campaign.
Para 14) ACCEPT stated that gender identity was not explicitly included in the list of criteria of non-discrimination and that the rights of transgender people remained largely ignored by the authorities. There were no official medical protocols and training for professionals on providing healthcare services for transgender persons and very few psychologists and medical professionals were available to provide such services. Medical interventions were not covered by the public healthcare insurance. The legislation on name change obliged transgender persons to go through court procedures. In the absence of clear regulations and laws, the courts issued contradictory interpretation of the law on aspects of gender affirming surgery.