Vezi raport EN

„building trust in human rights” be set down that the means uses (maximum age) in attaining the aim stated (pension of work) were appropriate and necessary. In this regard, it was set down that participants admitted to the competition were signing a statement by which they were acknowledging that they would not benefit from pension of work if they do not comply with the length of service requirements upon reaching the pensioning age. In such conditions, it cannot be set down that the imposition of the age limit was justified. The Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1 and par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000 and it recommended that the respondent

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

should take the required measures to eliminate the restrictive age requirements (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented).

(2006) Admission competition at the Police Academy. Conditions. Age. Self- notification (ex officio). The complaint of Ms. M.I. was joined with NCCD’s self-notification on establishing the maximum age of 25 years reached in the year of participation in the admission contest. In relation to this requirement it was shown that the applicable laws regulate the right to a career in the system, ensure the fulfillment of pensioning conditions and the development of the career, minimum required probation periods, length of service of minimum 30 years. Through decision no. 167 of 07.07.2006, the Committee set down that the imposition of the maximum age of 25 years constitutes a restriction of the right to education. The candidate may choose to sit admission exams in education at any age, taking upon himself the possibility or the risk of not being retired from a system, in this case of not benefitting from pension of work. The Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are direct discrimination, according to art. 2 par. 1 and par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000 and it

recommended the elimination of the maximum age condition for the admission competition (art. 2 par. 1 and par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented).

(2006) Regulations governing the retirement system. Profession. Doctors. Age. The National Agency for Equal Opportunities between Women and Men, the Commission for Equal Opportunities between women and men of the Senate and dr. D.M., dr. I.G., dr. V.O., dr. D.A. and dr. L.P. complained about the retirement requirements set in relation to the profession of doctor, in this case establishing of a differentiated age for women and men (Law no. 96/2006). The old regulation provided a retirement age of 65 years, irrespective of sex, going forward up to 70 years. The new regulation provides a retirement age under the public system of pensions, i.e. 60 years for women and 65 years for men. Through decision no. 209 of 27.06.2006, the Committee set down that the differentiation in the new regulation can be compared to an affirmative measure, but, in fact, for the same labour, employment, length of service, etc. women meet the retirement requirements at a different age than that of men. Or, in order for the measure in question to be considered affirmative, there should be a way for women to opt upon reaching the age of 60

years and not an obligation. Moreover, doctors are a special professional category as regards the duration of finalizing studies and effective start of practicing, unlike other professional categories, thus establishing retirement requirements depending on different ages infringes the principle of non-discrimination, according to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 6 of G.O. no. 137/2000. The Committee recommended that the Ministry of Health should endeavour to eliminate the provisions in question (art. 2 par. 1 and art. 6 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented).

(2006) Public employment offer. Conditions. Differences of treatment. Age. Self- notification (ex officio). NCCD was self-notified regarding the publishing in a specialized newspaper of an employment notice of S.C. C. S.R.L.. Thus, for untrained finish employee the age between 18-35 years was required. Through decision no. 320 of 23.11.2006, the Committee set down that the imposition of the age limit cannot be considered as justified by a legitimate aim and the means used were not proper and necessary, since the imposed criterion does not reflect on the character of labour required. The Committee found that