Vezi raport EN

„building trust in human rights” (2008) Labour relationships. Termination of the labour agreement. Age. Ms. A.C., a specialist doctor, with a PhD in medicine and a former fighter of the anticommunist resistance complained about the termination of the labour agreement, on age grounds, although the relevant legal provisions would have allowed him to continue the activity until reaching the age of 70. The petitioner showed that in the case of four colleagues who did not meet the legal requirements the continuation of activity was allowed, but in her case retirement was disposed. The respondent invoked that in the petitioner’s case the labour agreement was terminated under the law, so no

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

discrimination occurred. Through decision no. 429 of 22.07.2008, the Committee ascertained that no objective and reasonable justifications can be set down in relation to the differentiation regarding the petitioner According to the Committee, the continuation of the medical activity in the cases corresponding to the legal provisions applicable to the petitioner (PhD in medicine, fighter in the anticommunist resistance) was not conditional upon a possible agreement of the employer, thus the apparently neutral situation put the petitioner at disadvantage in relation to the persons whose labour agreement was extended. Moreover, the petitioner’s situation correlated to the premise stipulated in art. 385 par. 3 of Law no. 95/2006 was differentiated both in relation to the special norms of law no. 95/2006 and the doctors whose extension of labour agreements was approved, lastly because of age. The Committee ascertained that the notified deeds constitute indirect discrimination according to art. 2 par. 3 and art. 6 lett. a of G.O. no. 137/2000. Against the respondent was decided to apply the contraventional sanction of warning

(art. 2 par. 3 and art. 6 lett. a of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

(2010) Public employment offer. Conditions. Differences of treatment. Age. Mr. S.M. complained about the publishing of an employment notice by S.C. R S.A. posted on a specialized internet site (employment notices). In fact, the selection criteria specified a maximum age of 40 years. The petitioner transmitted through email his intent of filling a position corresponding to his training, but he did not receive a response. He considers that the age limit was the reason for not solving his request. The respondent showed that as regards the notice, the specification of the condition is the result of an error and it presented data showing that previously and subsequently to the notice in question it hired persons over 40 years. Through decision no. 337 of 18.11.2010, the Committee set down that by publishing the notice which stipulated the age limit requirements the effect was to discourage persons who did not fall under those limits from showing their actual interest in the position. In this case it was not showed that the limitation was a proper and necessary

measure in relation to a possible legitimate aim pursued in close connection with the position in question. The Committee set down that by publishing that notice a differentiation based on age was generated, infringing the provisions of art. 2 par. 1 of G.O. no. 137/2000. Also, a recommendation was issued for the respondent so that in the future it should adopt proper measures in its employment policy (art. 2 par. 1 of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

4. Discrimination in the field of labour on SEXUAL ORIENTATION grounds

(2007) Labour relationships. Pressure. Change of work place. Sexual orientation. Accept Association complained on behalf of B.R. regarding the fact that at his work place were disclosed information regarding his sexual orientation and his resignation was required. Procedures of disciplinary inquiry were started against the petitioner and he was sanctioned by warning. Subsequent to the investigations carried out by NCCD, the employer moved the petitioner to another work place on disciplinary reasons. Through decision no. 29 of 07.02.2007, the Committee set down that the disclosure by employees of certain information regarding the sexual orientation