CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mars 2021

.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 } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 March 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 53282/18 Liliana MORARU against Romania lodged on 6 November 2018 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 Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to 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 Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) which, in her view, should have taken precedence over those of the domestic law. In a final decision no. 1166 of 21 May 2018 (file no. 1158/91/2017) the Galaţi Court of Appeal dismissed as unfounded the application, on the ground that, under the requirements of domestic law, a civil servant’s work contract ended automatically when the retirement age was met (Law no.   188/1999 on the status of civil servants read together with Law no.   263/2010). 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 to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, insofar as she was forced 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)?