CERD/C/103/D/60/2016 to the respondent State, which must show that the difference in treatment is not discriminatory”.4 The petitioner further refers to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in which the Court has declared in a number of cases that if the burden of proof is not shifted, then it cannot provide effective protection against discrimination in certain situations.5 The requirement to introduce the shifting of burden of proof was later codified in a number of European Union directives on non-discrimination.6 The petitioner further notes that the Human Rights Committee applied, implicitly, the same standard in one of its decisions.7 In addition, the petitioner explains that discrimination occurs when someone is treated less favourably than another person due to his or her belonging to a certain group having protected characteristics. The burden of proof, as normally applied in civil proceedings, that is, if not shifted, would pose an undue burden on victims of discrimination, who are often not able to prove the causal link between their protected characteristics and the disadvantage suffered, in particular because the main pieces of evidence are usually in the possession of the discriminator. In this context, the petitioner submits that he listed Romani as his mother tongue, which strongly suggests that he is Roma. For the purposes of assessing whether he was discriminated against, he refers to B.V., who was in an identical situation, and compared to whom the petitioner suffered disadvantage that was manifested in the rejection of his job application. Furthermore, relying on the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the petitioner submits that a presumption may be deduced from the failure of the respondent company to grant access to information that may be relevant for the assessment of a discrimination claim.8 In this connection, he underlines that the respondent company refused to submit documentation relating to the recruitment process to rebut the petitioner’s claim that his ethnicity was known by the hiring personnel and that it was a factor that had been taken into account in the selection process. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 9 March 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication, in which it first restates the facts of the case and presents the position of various State authorities. The Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Moldova submits that it was not informed of the case at the time, nor was it involved in any other way in the domestic lawsuit, and therefore did not provide any observations concerning the substance of the case. 4.2 The Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Protection recalls that the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova prohibits discrimination on any grounds, including ethnicity, which is reaffirmed by the Labour Code in the domain of employment. The Ministry submits that, contrary to what the petitioner argues, there are a number of mechanisms to ensure that these norms are being enforced. These include an option for the injured party to request the courts to establish that the denial of employment has been unlawful and require the employer to enter into an employment contract with the person concerned. The Ministry underlines that the petitioner in the present case did not avail himself of this opportunity but asked for compensation on the ground of alleged discrimination against him. Regarding the lawfulness of the rejection of the petitioner’s application, the Ministry considers that the selection process was governed by a regulation, adopted at the company level, that establishes clear 4 5 6 7 8 European Court of Human Rights, D.H. and others v. Czech Republic (application No. 57325/00), judgment of 13 November 2007, para. 189. Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Handels- og Kontorfunktionrerernes Forbund I Denmark v. Dansk Arhejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Danfoss (case 109/88); and judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Dr. Pamela Mary Enderby v. Frenchay Health Authority and Secretary of State for Health (case C-127/92). Council Directive 2000/43/CE of 29 June 2000 on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin; Council Directive 2000/78/CE of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation; and Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation. See Bhinder v. Canada (CCPR/C/37/D/208/1986). Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Meister v. Speech Design Carrier Systems GmbH (case C-415/10). 3