Vezi raport EN

„protecţie efectivă a drepturilor omului” 3. Discrimination in the field of labour on grounds of AGE

(2003) Public employment offer. Conditions. Differences of treatment. Age. Ms. X, aged 35 complained about the fact that following a notice published in the newspaper „Romania Libera”, she contacted the employer B.A.D.O. with a view to filling the position of legal adviser or secretary. The representative of the respondent indicated that the she did not fall under the criteria for filling the position, since the maximum age is 28 years, although this requirement was not provided in the notice published in the newspaper. Through decision no. 122 of 23.04.2003, the Committee set down that the deeds presented constitute discrimination in the meaning of art. 2 par. 2 and art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000. In the same sense, was called art. 1 of NCCD’s Order published in the Official Gazette no. 235 of 7 April 2003, according to which employers are obliged to ensure free access to all the stages of the employment process without any distinction based on age. Also, it was decided to sanction the respondent by contraventional fine amounting to 5.000.000 lei (ROL) (art. 2 par.

2, art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000).

50 CONSILIUL NAŢIONAL PENTRU COMBATEREA DISCRIMINĂRII

(2003) Public employment offer. Conditions. Differences of treatment. Age. Gender. M.C. complained about the employment ad published by the commune Hall, in this case the requirements for enrollment in the competition (maid). Among the selection criteria, the respondent included the condition: female person, age between 30-35 years. Through decision no. 113 of 07.05.2003, the Committee ascertained that those criteria (age, gender) infringe the provisions of art. 2 par. 2, art. 5 and art. 5 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000. Likewise, it was decided to sanction the respondent by contraventional fine amounting to 7.000.000 lei (ROL) (art. 2 par. 2, art. 5, art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000).

(2003) Public employment offer. Conditions. Differences of treatment. Age. R.D. complained about the notice for filling a position published by the Chamber of Deputies, which included an age limit for candidates. Through decision no. 173 of 03.06.2003, the Committee set down that the notified aspects constitute discrimination, in the meaning of art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000. Since from the date of deed perpetration (December 2001) over 6 months had elapsed, the term for the application of the sanction was lost by limitation. (art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000).

(2003) Competition for filling a position. Conditions. Differences of treatment. Age. Gender. O.I., P.G. and B.V. complained about the organization of competitions for employing personnel within the Town Hall, mainly the conditions of age and sex. Within three competitions for filling the positions of guard, driver and clerk (fiscal agent), participation was made conditional upon age (maximum 35 years for the position of guard, maximum 45 years for the position of driver and maximum 35 years for the position of clerk) and sex (male) for all positions. Through decision no. 178 of 03.06.2003, the Committee set down that the notified deeds are discrimination in the meaning of art. 7 par. 1 and 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000. Since from the date of deed perpetration(14.06.2001, 9.07.2001, 4.10.2002) more than 6 month had elapsed, the term for the application of the sanction was lost by limitation (art. par. 1 and par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000).

(2003) Public employment offer. Conditions. Differences of treatment. Age. Self- notification (ex officio). NCCD was self-notified regarding the publishing within advertisement sections in the written press of employment notices containing selection criteria based on age, sex or affiliation with an ethnic group or a minority. The Committee was self-notified regarding the publishing of such notices in the newspapers “Romania Libera”, “National”, “Evenimentul Zilei”, Monitorul de Bucuresti”, „Adevarul”, „Ziarul”, ’Ziua. Through decisions