CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 novembre 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 2 December 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 38715/22 Maria MARIAN against Romania lodged on 2 August 2022 communicated on 13 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal to allow the applicant to continue to work after she attained the retirement age set for women, until she reached the higher retirement age set for men. The applicant, whose work contract had been terminated on 25 February 2020 by her employer, the National Museum George Enescu, despite her request to continue to work, lodged a complaint before the National Council for Combatting Discrimination (“the NCCD”) and a civil action before the Bacău County Court, arguing, among others, that she had been discriminated against because she was a woman. On 20 January 2021 the NCCD found that the situation in which the applicant had been placed amounted to discrimination based on age and sex, and fined her employer on that account. Her civil action, initially allowed by the Bacău County Court on 14 April 2021, was ultimately dismissed by the Bacău Court of Appeal in a final decision of 12 April 2022. The Court of Appeal interpreted the applicant’s request to continue to work as one covered by Article 56 § 4 of the Labour Code (which allowed continuation of a work contract for a maximum of three years beyond the standard retirement age with the employer’s approval) and not as one covered by Article 56 § 1 (c) of the Labour Code (which allowed a female employee, if she so whished, to continue to work beyond the retirement age set for women). The court found that, in the absence of the employer’s approval for continued employment, the applicant’s work contract had been rightfully terminated. The NCCD decision was not mentioned in the reasoning of the Court of Appeal. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 and on Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 8 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant alleged that women were discriminated in terms of conditions of retirement. She also complained, under Article 6 of the Convention, about the manner in which the Court of Appeal examined her case. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination on account of her sex and age, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   8 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, or contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, given that she was forced to retire at an age different from that set for men (see, notably, Moraru and Marin v. Romania , nos. 53282/18 and 31428/20, §§ 123-24, 20   December 2022, Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal , no. 17484/15, § 46, 25 July 2017, and Napotnik v.   Romania , no.   33139/13, §§ 69-75, 20 October 2020)?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations before the Court of Appeal, in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention (see, notably,   Gillissen v. the Netherlands , no. 39966/09, §   50, 15 March 2016, Vanjak v. Croatia , no. 29889/04, §§   45 ‑ 47, 14 January 2010, and Wierzbicki v. Poland , no. 24541/94, § 39, 18   June 2002), given that: (a)     on its own initiative, the Court of Appeal examined the case under a different provision than that which had been indicated by the applicant in her action; and (b)     the Court of Appeal failed to examine her complaint based on discrimination despite her explicit request to that end and despite the conclusions of the NCCD’s decision of 20 January 2021?