CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 juin 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 8 July 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 37400/22 Constantin VASILE-ACRIVOPOL against Romania lodged on 22 July 2022 communicated on 18 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations that the applicant, a civil servant in the Braşov County Council, and his colleagues, were treated less favourably than civil servants on similar posts in other county councils, because of the manner in which their employer calculated their salaries. The National Council for Combatting Discrimination (“the CNCD”) issued an opinion which indicated that the applicant’s situation created “the presumption of a discriminatory treatment compared to other civil servants of equal status” and that “it would be for the court to establish the protected ground on which the plaintiffs had been treated differently than other civil servants.” The action, initially allowed by the Braşov County Court on 16 June 2021, was ultimately dismissed by the Braşov Court of Appeal in a final decision of 23 March 2022. While the County Court relied explicitly on the CNCD opinion, the latter was not mentioned in the reasoning of the Court of Appeal. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the Court of Appeal failed to provide a reasoned decision and to examine an important piece of evidence favourable to him, which had informed the decision rendered by the County Court in his favour. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No.   12 to the Convention, the applicant complains that he was discriminated against in respect of his right to receive equal pay (recognised by Law no.   153/2017 on the wages paid from public funds) compared to civil servants holding a similar post in other county councils. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, in particular, Suominen v. Finland , no. 37801/97, § 36, 1 July 2003; mutatis mutandis, Carmel Saliba v.   Malta , no. 24221/13, §§ 73 and 79, 29   November 2016; García Ruiz v.   Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I; Ruiz Torija v. Spain , 9 December 1994, § 30, Series A no.   303 ‑ A; and Hiro Balani v. Spain , 9   December 1994, §   28, Series A no.   303-B)? In particular: (a)     did the Court of Appeal provide reasons in its final decision of 23   March 2022? (b)     should the Court of Appeal, in his final decision, have specifically and expressly examine the CNCD opinion?   2.     Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 114, 20 March 2018), has the applicant suffered discrimination in the manner in which his salary was calculated, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention (absorbing the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention)?