Vezi raport EN

„protecţie efectivă a drepturilor omului” down that the denial was in fact an exclusion on age grounds, unjustified given that at the date of the competition the petitioner had 63 years and the standard retirement age was 65 years. Through decision no. 326 of 28.11.2005 the Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are direct discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1, art. 6 lett. d of G.O. no. 137/2000, Also, it recommended that the respondent should grant the endorsement (art. 2 par. 1, art. 6 lett. d of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented).

(2005) Selection competition training programs. Regulation. Conditions. Differences of treatment. Age. Self-notification (ex officio). NCCD was self-notified regarding the regulation on the selection for programs of specialized training for managers, on age grounds (maximum 35 years). Through decision no. 355 of 18.11.2005, the Committee set down that through the regulations applicable to civil servants no requirement of age was imposed. Basically, by imposing the requirement of maximum age the civil servants over 35 years are excluded from getting to the manager profession. The Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are direct discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1 and par. 2, art. 6 lett.

54 CONSILIUL NAŢIONAL PENTRU COMBATEREA DISCRIMINĂRII

d of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented. Also, it was decided to issue a recommendation to the respondent to eliminate the maximum age requirement for specialized training programs for the position of public manager (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 2, art. 6 lett d of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented).

(2006) Labour relationship. Suppression of position. Reorganization. Age. Mr. T.M. complained about the suppression of the position, invoking the fact that the reorganization of the activity by the employer had the aims of discharging him, on age grounds (58 years), although he had a length of service of 12 years with that employer. He indicates that in the company the personnel has a length of service between 2 months and 2 years, with an age of up to 25 years. Through decision no. 13 of 10.01.2006, the Committee set down that the petitioner was in a comparability situation with the other employees and the respondent invoked apparently neutral criteria, namely the observance of legal provisions regarding the establishment of a working unit in case the number of 4 employees was surpassed. Thus the restructuring was carried out given that the employees had full time positions, except for the petitioner who had a part-time position. The working unit in question employed a person aged 24 years, thus the number of employees surpassed 4 and it was necessary to fiscally register the

working unit. After approximately one month the employer considered that he should perform the reorganization and it suppressed the position of the petitioner. In such conditions, the Committee considered that it cannot be set down that were used proper and necessary means for attaining a legitimate aim as the petitioner was put at disadvantage in relation to the other employees. It was set down that the notified deeds are direct discrimination according to art. 2 par. 2 and art. 6 lett. a 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. 2 and art. 6 lett. a of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented).

(2006) Filling a vacant position in the penitentiary system. Age conditions. Mr. I.N. complained about the age condition imposed for filling a position of agent. The petitioner, a graduate of the military school, penitentiaries profile was active as a non-commissioned officer, but he was put on reserve status following the decision of the commission of medical-military expertise. After several re-examinations, he was declared able and consequently he requested to be enrolled in a competition for a vacant position. Since he did not fulfill the age requirement, he was requested to demand for age exemption. The request was rejected. It was invoked that in establishing the age limit, the requirement of taking sport tests was taken into account and the law on military pensions establishes a length of service of at least 15 years. Through decision no. 125 of 11.06.2006, the Committee set down that in relation to the grounds invoked, it cannot