Published on 29 March 2021

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 31428/20 Doina MARIN against Romania lodged on 14 July 2020 communicated on 9 March 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns allegations that the difference in retirement age between men and women constitutes discrimination based on sex, within the meaning of the Convention.

The applicant, a civil servant, reached the retirement age for women (63 years old, Article 53 § 1 Law no. 263/2010 on the unitary public pension scheme) and expressed her wish to continue work until the retirement age for men (65 years old, under the same legislative provision). She relied on the provisions of Article 98 of Law no. 188/1999 on the status of civil servants, allowing continuation of work beyond retirement age if the employer agreed, as well as on Article 56 § 1 (c) of the Labour Code, which since 14 November 2018, following a ruling by the Constitutional Court (decision no. 387/2018, in force since 24 July 2018), reads that women who reached retirement age are allowed the right to opt for continuing their work until reaching the retirement age set for men.

In a final decision no. 103 of 16 January 2020 (file no. 9061/2019) the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the action. It considered that the decision no. 387/2018 of the Constitutional Court was not applicable to the proceedings brought in the present case, insofar as the applicant ’ s situation was regulated by Law no. 188/1999, and not by the Labour Code. It noted that as the applicant had not obtained the employer ’ s approval to continue working beyond her retirement age, her work contract had been lawfully terminated.

The applicant relies on Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 8, as well as on Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has the applicant suffered discrimination on account of her sex, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, insofar as she had to retire at an age different from that set for men (see, notably, Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal , no. 17484/15 , § 46, 25 July 2017, as well as Napotnik v. Romania , no. 33139/13, §§ 69-75, 20 October 2020)?