Vezi raport EN

„building trust in human rights” under protective conditions. According to the Ministry of Justice, the petitioner’s disability constituted an obstacle in the exercise of the public notary profession and the relevant legislation does not provide exceptions on taking the exam individually. Through decision no. 276 of 25.10.2005, the Committee set down that the notified deeds are direct discrimination, according to art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3, art. 6 and art. 19 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented. The Committee referred to the provisions of art. 15 of the revised European Social Charter and to the provisions of Law no. 102/1999 on the special

47 RAPORT PRIVIND IMPLEMENTAREA DIRECTIVEI CADRU (2000/78/CE) ÎN ROMÂNIA

protection and employment of disabled persons, particularly art. 44 which refers to the obligation of adapting the workplace. Therefore the petitioner’s request was legitimate, given that the law promotes the protection of disabled persons. Against the respondent (N.U.P.N. and Ministry of Justice) was decided to apply the contraventional sanction of warning. Also, it was recommended that NUPN should establish a special commission to examine the specialized knowledge of the petitioner. (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3 and art. 19 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented).

(2007) Social insurance rights. Retirement. Disability. Age. Mr. A.A., a disabled person retired for age limit complained about the refusal of issuing a new retirement decision by including the additional contributory period according to art. 78 par. 8 of Law no. 19/2000. The respondent rejected the petitioner’s request, although courts settled that „blind insured who got retired pursuant to art. 47 par. 2 of Law no. 19/2000 fulfill the two cumulative requirements provided by art. 78 par. 8 of the law, namely the minimum contributory age to be able to benefit from the increase of the scoring for the additional contributory period” and “the circumstance that disabled persons benefit through the effect of the law from a reduction of the contributory period cannot result in their exclusion from the application of provisions of art. 78 par. 8 of the law”. The respondent alleged that the petitioner did not fulfill the relevant legal requirements. Through decision no. 218 of 01.08.2007, the Committee ascertained that in this case, the criterion which underlay the treatment applied was the circumstance contained in the provisions of art. 47 par.

2, referred to art. 78 par. 8 of Law no. 19/2000, concretely the standard retirement age referred to the retirement age for disabled persons, namely blind person for which the legal provision stipulate the benefit of „allowance for age limit, irrespective of age, if they filled as blind persons at least a third of the full contributory period provided by the law”. In terms of comparability, art. 78 par. 8 of the said law stipulated that shall benefit from an increase of allowance all those who, after meeting the retirement requirements for age limit further contribute for a certain period to the public system of pensions. Thus all those who qualify for retirement for age limit as provided by the law, in terms of retirement and benefits granted by art. 78 par. 8 are in a comparable situation, including the blind insured retired according to art. 47 par. 2 of the law. The High Court of Cassation and Justice through the judgment delivered maintained the Sentence of the Court of Appeal P. that the provision of art. 78 par. 8 generates an equality regime for pensioners receiving an allowance for age limit. Thus the Committee considered that through the effect of interpreting

the legal provisions in question was generated an inherent different treatment, in the form of excluding the petitioner from the application of provisions of art. 78 par. 8 of Law no. 19/2000. The Committee decided to issue a recommendation to the Ministry of Labour to endeavour to adopt the technical norms for the application of the provisions of art. 78 par. 8 of Law no. 19/2000, according to the principle of equal treatment between persons (art. 1, art. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

(2007) Competition for filling a teaching position. Rejection. Disability. M.D. complained about the fact that he enrolled in the competition for filling a teaching position in the field of model plane flying, but he was rejected because of his disability. The petitioner is a person with an increased disability, a graduate of the National Academy for Physical Education and Sport, specialization Model Plane Flying. The responded showed that the refusal was due