Vezi raport EN

„building trust in human rights” no. 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193 and 194 of 10.06.2003, the Committee set down that by imposing the conditions in question were perpetrated discrimination deeds against the provisions of art. 2 par. 2 and art. 7 par. 2 . It was also decided to contraventionally sanction by warning the respondents. (art. 2 par. 2 and 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,

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

which included the requirement of an age limit for candidates. Through decision no. 217 of 14.03.2003, the Committee set down that by settling an age limit as a condition of participation in the competition organized for filling a position was caused a discrimination in the meaning of the provisions of art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000. Also, it was decided to contraventionally sanction the respondent. by warning (art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000).

(2004) Public employment offer. Conditions. Differences of treatment. Age. Sex. Mr. X complained about the fact that a specialized internet site published an employment notice for the position of programmer. Among the required conditions for selection was age between 20-45 years and the male gender. Through decision no. 60 of 26.02.2004, the Committee set down that the notified deeds are discrimination, according to art. 2 par. 3 and art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented. Against the employer was decided to apply the contraventional sanction of warning (art. 2 par. 3 and art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000 subsequently amended and supplemented).

(2004) Admission to profession. Statute. Conditions. Differences of treatment. Age. Ms. L.E.G. submitted her file for the participation in the exam of admission to the public notary profession. The petitioner’s file was rejected because she exceeded the age of 35 years, pursuant to the provisions of art. 48 of the Statute of the National Union of Public Notaries. Article 48 provided that trainee notaries can be those persons who did not exceed 5 years after obtaining the bachelor’s degree and at most 35 years. The respondent called the fact that these requirements are justified by the encouragement of young graduates in law and the legal provisions applicable to the profession of notary. Through decision no. 122 of 20.01.2004, the Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1 and par. 2 and art. 7 par. 1 and par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented. The Committee set down that limiting the access of persons over 35 years to the competition generates a restraint of competitors by which is infringed the

right to equal opportunities in the access to profession. The encouragement of participation of young graduates to the admission competition can constitute a legitimate purpose, but the methods of attaining that purpose (imposing an age limit) are not proper, since they restrict the free access to the exam of admission to the probation as notary. Against the respondent was decided to apply the contraventional sanction of warning (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 2 and art. 7 par. 1 and par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented.

(2004) Public employment offer. Conditions. Differences of treatment. Age. Sex. Self-notification (ex officio). NCCD was self-notified regarding the employment announcement of company G.V.M.S.R.L. published in newspaper „Ziua”. The announcement concerned the position of secretary and among the selection requirements were: age (minimum 23 years – maximum 30 years), sex (female) and residence (Bucharest). Through decision no. 158 of 25.05.2004, the Committee set down that the issues in question constitute direct discrimination , according to art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3, art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented. Against the respondent was decided to apply the contraventional sanction of warning (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3, art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented).