CYIL 2014

EUROPEAN ANTIǧDISCRIMINATION LAWAND THE LEGAL STATUS OF PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES from the problematic statements, respectively a publicly declared anti-discrimination policy of the employer. At this point, the reader of the judgment can hardly resist the impression that the cat is biting its own tail. The employer shall, at the first opportunity, publicly distance himself from statements which could be attributable to him due to some general impression. But if he really acted like this, surely, according to the ECJ there would be no discrimination, and it would be pointless to address the issue of the reversal of the burden of proof. 4.4 On the dissuasive effect of the sanction After the ECJ had solved the problems regarding the responsibility of FC Steaua and the application of the burden of proof, it dealt quite extensively with the question of whether the warning against Mr. Becali under Romanian law constitutes an effective sanction within the meaning and spirit of Article 17 of the Directive 2000/78/ ES. Citing from its relevant case law the ECJ recalled that sanctions should be proportionate to the seriousness of the breach and ensure deterrent effect. National authorities should also take into account the principle of proportionality. Symbolic sanctions, obviously, do not meet these criteria. On the other hand, the sanction of a warning, as regulated in the Romanian legislation, cannot be automatically considered to be a symbolic penalty. According to the ECJ, this applies in particular in a case when the warning is associated with considerable publicity and facilitates further proceedings to obtain compensation for damages by victims of discrimination. However, some irritation might be caused by a regulation in Romanian law according to which the limitation period for imposing a financial sanction for administrative offences is six months from the date on which the events took place, completely regardless of the length of proceedings. The six month period runs from the date when the alleged discrimination occurred, even in case that the actual complaint was filed only six months after the incident. Finally, the ECJ left the specific assessment of the effectiveness and adequacy of the penalty, like in other similar cases, for the national court. 5. The continuation of the case before the Court of Appeal From the text of the judgment it appears that the case of the organization Accept received considerable support from the ECJ. However, when the case continued before the Bucharest Court of Appeal, the case took a surprising turn in favor of the Consiliul National and indirectly in favor of FC Steaua. On 23 December 2013 the Court of Appeal dismissed the action of Accept as unfounded. 25 25 Curtea de Apel București, Dosar nr. 12562/2010 (judgment of 23 December 2013). I want to thank the organization Accept and the Austrian Embassy in Romania for the provision of the judgment in the Romanian language. For help with the translation of the judgment from Romanian to the Czech language my special thanks belong to Petra Mendlová. For brief information about the judgment in English, see Report of the European Network of Legal Experts in the non-discrimination field of

235