CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 15 September 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 15306/19 Nicolae ENE against Romania lodged on 4 March 2019 communicated on 25 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations that the applicant, a retired judicial officer ( asistent judiciar ), was treated less favourably than other retired judicial court staff having hold similar posts, because of the refusal of the local Pension Authority to grant him a special pension, while the National Council for Combatting Discrimination (“the CNCD”) found that the aspects raised by the applicant created the presumption of discriminatory treatment. The applicant worked as a judicial officer at the Teleorman County Court. By administrative decision of 23 May 2014, the local Pension Authority granted him, upon retirement, the old-age pension, not the special pension ( pensie de serviciu ) as he had requested. Considering that he had been treated differently than other judicial staff, on 16 August 2017, the applicant lodged an action under the Government Ordinance No.   137/2000 (hereinafter the “Anti-discrimination Ordinance”) before the Teleorman County Court. He argued that he was entitled to the special pension granted by virtue of Law   no.   303/2004. The CNCD was consulted in the case as expert on discrimination issues, upon request of the Teleorman County Court. On 31   August 2017, the CNCD opined that the “aspects raised by the applicant created the presumption of discriminatory treatment ( aspectele semnalate de reclamant creează prezumţia unei fapte de discriminare )”. The CNCD also indicated that it was for the County Court to establish, based on all the evidence submitted in the case, if an objective justification existed or not for that treatment. By judgment of 23 January 2018, the County Court dismissed the action, on the grounds that Law no.   303/2004 only granted the special pension to judges, prosecutors, magistrates and other judicial court staff assimilated to judges. The court considered that the applicant did not belong to any of the categories listed by the law. The applicant appealed denouncing inter alia that the County Court did not analyse the crucial evidence filed by CNCD. By final decision of 7   June 2018, the Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld the above-mentioned decision. It reiterated that (1) the judicial officers were not mentioned in Law no. 303/2004 among the categories entitled to the special pension, (2) the right to receive a special pension was not a fundamental right safeguarded by the Constitution or any international treaty to which Romania would be a party. The Court of Appeal did not refer in its judgement to the findings of the CNCD, nor to the applicant’s argument in that respect. The applicant invokes Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and Articles 1 of Protocol No. 1 and 1 of Protocol No.   12 to the Convention. He complains that the Court of Appeal did not give relevant reasons for its final decision; that the domestic courts did not offer protection against discrimination at the same standards as those set by the Convention and the Court, and that he was discriminated against on the ground on his profession; that he was entitled to a special pension which constituted a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, for the purpose of the examination of his Article 14 claim of discriminatory treatment.       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 domestic courts, particularly the Court of Appeal, provide reasons in their decisions?   (b)     should the domestic courts, particularly the Court of Appeal in its final decision, have specifically and expressly examined 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 on the ground of his profession (see Elisei-Uzun and Andonie v. Romania , no. 42447/10, § 70, 23 April 2019), in the manner in which his retir ement pension was established, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention (absorbing the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention)?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? In the affirmative, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR   1999-V; mutatis mutandis, Bélané Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no.   53080/13, §§   72-127, 13 December 2016; and Beeler v. Switzerland [GC], no. 78630/12, § 57, 11 October 2022)?