Vezi raport EN

„building trust in human rights” persons were hired by the respondent. The petitioner was eligible for the reduction of the retirement age according to the law regarding the protection of disabled persons, but he worked on a determined period since he did not have a complete contributory period and he did not reach yet the retirement age for retirement for age limit. The respondent alleged the lack of vacancies and the lack of a position adapted to a disabled person. The Committee noted however that the petitioner requested that he would be employed on the previously held position, which allows to presume that this was appropriate for the

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

needs of the petitioner, given the long period of time in which he actually filled it. Through decision no. 77 of 03.02.2009, the Committee ascertained that although the reasons called are apparently neutral, they are not objectively justified thus in this case was set down an indirect discrimination, it was decided to sanction the respondent by warning and to issue a recommendation. (art. 2 par. 3 and art. 6 par. 1 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

(2009) Competition for position. Rejection of file with a view to employment. Disability. M.G.C. complained about the rejection of his file for the participation in a competition for filling a position, on reason of medical non-compliance, although the family doctor issued a medical certificate with the note “clinically able”. The petitioner submitted at the file the medical certificate and a disability certificate. The respondent alleged that the refusal is based on the lack of capacity to cope with the demands of the position, in this case the poor health status. The Committee noted that the review commission that rejected the file included no doctor and the competence to establish the suitability of a person to fill a position devolve upon the commission, but upon medical bodies. Through decision no. 345 of 23.06.2009, the Committee set down that because of the disability, without being established a direct and objective link with the petitioner medical non-compliance, he was limited in his right of participating in the competition for filling a position. Thus, the Committee ascertained the direct discrimination and it decided to apply

sanctioning by warning and issuing a recommendation to the respondent (art. 2 par. 1, art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

(2010) Competition for admission to profession. Reasonable accommodation. Disability. Mr. A.R.C. complained about the fact that he enrolled in the exam for admission in the profession of insolvency practitioner and he requested, justified by medical grounds, an additional time of half to the normal examination time. The petitioner indicated that he suffers from certain medical conditions, impaired concentration, cognitive deterioration and poor concentration power with weak results in speed. The representatives of the respondent informed the petitioner that they cannot respond favourably to the request for reasons of missing regulation of such cases. Through decision no. 126 of 07.07.2010, the Committee set down that there was a limitation in the petitioner’s regard (reduction by at least a half of the work capacity) which resulted from physical, mental or psychical deficiencies (classification in level III of disability) and which prevented his participation to the professional life for a long period of time. Although the given situation did not result from an act certifying a disability, stricto sensu, in addition to the national law no. 448/2006 on the protection and promotion of the rights of

disabled persons, the Committee also referred to the interpretation given to the disability notion by the European Court of Justice and the concept of reasonable accommodation transposed in the national law. The Committee set down that the reasons of the respondent had an apparently neutral nature, but the fact led to the petitioner’s disadvantage because of his medical situation, in the meaning of art. 2 par. 3 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished. ... The failure to take into account the different situation of the petitioner led to an identical treatment of persons in different situations, which constitutes one of the forms of breaching the equality principle and in this case an indirect discrimination by not ensuring the reasonable accommodation in question. It was also decided to issue a recommendation so that in the organization of admission competitions all relevant differences regarding persons with disabilities be taken into account and to adopt appropriate measures to ensure equal opportunities in the process of access to profession (art. 2 par. 3 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).