Vezi raport EN

„building trust in human rights” 7 par. 1 and par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented. Against the employer and the site administrator was decided to apply the sanction of contraventional fine amounting to 20.000.000 lei and 4.000.000 lei (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3, art. 7 par. 1 and par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented).

(2005) Public employment offer. Conditions. Differences of treatment. Age. Self- notification (ex officio). NCCD was self-notified regarding the publishing in advertisement

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

sections of the written press of employment notices containing selection criteria based on age and gender. The self-notification concerned the publishing of such notices in newspapers „Ziua”, „7 Plus” and „Ziarul”. Through decisions no. 98,99 and 100 of 17.05.2005, the Committee set down that by imposing the conditions in question were perpetrated discrimination deeds infringing the provisions of art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3 and art. 7 par. 2. Also, it was decided to contraventionally sanction the respondent by warning (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3 and art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000).

(2005) Public employment offer. Conditions. Differences of treatment. Age. Self- notification (ex officio). NCCD was self-notified regarding the publishing in the advertisement sections of written press of employment notices containing selection criteria based on age and gender. The self-notification concerned the publishing of such notices in newspapers „Atac”, „Adevarul”, „Jurnalul national”, „Libertatea”, „Evenimentul Zilei”, „Bursa”, „Romania Libera”. Through decisions no. 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107 of 17.05.2005, the Committee set down that by imposing the conditions in question were perpetrated discrimination deeds infringing the provisions of art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3 and art. 7 par. 2. Also, it was decided to sanction the respondents by warning (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 3 and art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000).

(2005) Public employment offer. Conditions. Differences of treatment. Age. Residence. Mr. V.K. complained about the publishing on a specialized internet site of an employment notice for the position of art director. Among the selection requirements were included age of maximum 30 years and compulsory residence in Bucharest. Through decision no. 205 of 11.07.2005, the Committee set down that the notified deeds are direct discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 7 pr. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented (art. 2 par. 1, art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented).

(2005) Labour relationships. Promotion. Differentiated treatment. Age. Mr. B.I. complained about the refusal of an endorsement of his file in order to be promoted in an educational position, due to age. In fact the competition file was rejected since it was considered that the petitioner exceeds the age of promotion to the position of University teacher. Although the university which employed him approved the continuation of his activity on a position of lecturer, there was no endorsement for another educational position. Through decision no. 321 of 21.11.2005, the Committee set down that although the refusal was based on the provisions of art. 61 and 129 of Law no. 128/1997 regarding the status of educational personnel, these did not lay down promotion restrictions during the course of a labour relationship. The Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are direct discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 6 lett. d of G.O. no. 137/2000 and it decided to issue a recommendation (art. 2 par. 1 and art. 6 lett. d of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented).

(2005) Labour relationships. Promotion. Differentiated treatment. Age. Mr. D.I. complained about the refusal of endorsing his file for promotion in the educational position (lecturer) due to age. In fact, the competition file was endorsed by the University which employed him, but was rejected by the Ministry of Education, since at the date of enrollment in the competition he fulfilled the conditions of retirement for age limit. The Committee set