Vezi raport EN

„protecţie efectivă a drepturilor omului” (2004) Admission competition to training programs. Regulation. Conditions. Differences of treatment. Age. Ms. X complained about the regulation regarding the organization and conduct of the competition for admission to the specialized training programs in public administration. The regulation provided that are able to join the competition University graduates with a Bachelor’s Degree, whose age cannot exceed 30 years. Through decision no. 237 of 19.08.2004, the Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are direct discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3 and art. 6 lett. d of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented. Against the respondent was decided to apply the contraventional sanction of warning. Also, it was decided to issue a recommendation to the respondent to initiate proceedings to amend the regulation in order to eliminate the discriminatory provisions on grounds of age (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3 and art. 6 lett. d of G.O.

no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented.

(2004) Labour relationships. Promotion. Differentiated treatment. Age. Mr. C.F. complained about the refusal to certify promotion on the position of University teacher, on

52 CONSILIUL NAŢIONAL PENTRU COMBATEREA DISCRIMINĂRII

grounds of age. The petitioner enrolled in the competition for the position in question, his file was accepted by the examination commission and following the contest he was declared winner and the Senate of the Faculty confirmed the exam. The file of the petitioner was sent to the National Council For the Certification of Titles, Diplomas and Certificates which decided that the petitioner „cannot be promoted above the retirement age”, since he is 66 years of age. In relation to the provisions of art. 128 and 129 of the Law regarding the statute of the educational personnel it resulted that the maintenance in the position held was related to the position previous to retirement, without question of promotion after reaching the age of 65 years. Moreover, under the law, university teachers and lecturers holding a PhD can be maintained in the position held, upon request and with the consent of the faculty council, until they reach the age of 70 years. Through decision no. 299 of 05.10.2004, the Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are direct discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3 and art. 6 lett. d of G.O. no. 137/2000,

subsequently amended and supplemented. It was also decided to issue a recommendation to N.C.C.T.D. with a view to eliminating discriminatory acts, on grounds of age (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3, art. 6 lett. b of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented).

(2005) Labour relationship. Termination of labour agreement. Age. Mr. M.V. complained against company BRD GSG regarding the termination of his labour agreement because of age. The management report indicated that the replacement of the guard (n.n. the petitioner) was necessary, since his age is „much above the age of the team of employees”. The respondent indicated that they did not want to terminate the contract, but to replace the employee as discontent was expressed as to how the petitioner fulfilled his duties. Through decision no. 48 of 09.03.2005, the Committee set down that from the documents of the file it resulted that age was the only element that determined the decision of ceasing labour relationships. In such conditions, was ascertained the perpetration of a direct discrimination, according to art. 1 point 1 par. 1, art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3, art. 6 lett. a of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented, It was decided to sanction the respondent by contraventional fine amounting to 20.000.000 lei (art. 1 point 1 par. 1, art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3,

art. 6 lett. a of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented).

(2005) Public employment offer. Conditions. Differences of treatment. Age. Ethnic origin. Mr. X complained about the publishing by S.C. Adrasim S.R.L. on a specialized internet site of certain employment notices (tailors, garment workers, auto-mechanics). Among the selection requirements were included age between 30-40 years and the exclusion of Roma („Roma excluded”). Through decision no. 97 of 17.05.2005, the Committee set down that the notified deeds constitute direct discrimination, according to art. 2 par. 1 and par. 2, art.