Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2011, Publicación: 101ª reunión CIT (2012)

Convenio sobre la discriminación (empleo y ocupación), 1958 (núm. 111) - Rumania (Ratificación : 1973)

Discrimination based on political opinion – inherent requirements of the job. In its previous observations, the Committee had drawn the Government’s attention to section 50 of Act No. 188/1999 on civil servants, as amended and reissued in 2004, which provides that “to hold public office a person shall meet the following conditions: [...] (j) shall not have been carrying out an activity in the political police as defined by the law”. It had requested the Government to supply information on what constituted an “activity in the political police” and on the application of section 50 of the Act in practice. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the provision in question, i.e. section 54(j) of Act No. 188/1999 in its updated version, should be interpreted in the context of the Emergency Ordinance No. 24/2008 concerning access to an individual’s personal file and the disclosure of the Securitate as the political police. According to the Government, the applicable legislation no longer mentions “political police” but now refers to “employees of Securitate” and to “collaborators of Securitate”. Ordinance No. 24/2008 defines an “employee of Securitate” as being “any person having served as officer or non-commissioned officer in the Securitate or Militia, including as an undercover agent, with responsibility in security matters between 1945 and 1989, conducting activities that suppressed or restricted freedoms and fundamental rights”; and a “collaborator of Securitate” as being “any person having provided information, in whatever form, such as notes and written reports, as well as oral reports recorded by security employees denouncing activities and behaviour hostile to the totalitarian communist regime, which sought to restrict freedoms and fundamental rights”. Furthermore, the Committee notes that an appeal was lodged with the Constitutional Court against the provision of Act No. 188/1999 in question, and that the Court dismissed the claim that it was unconstitutional in 2006 (Ruling No. 41/2006 of 24 January 2006). The Committee nevertheless considers that, in view of the fact that it applies to all posts in the public service, the exclusion provided for under section 54(j) is not adequately defined or limited and might cause discrimination in employment based on the person’s political opinion. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that section 54(j) of Act No. 188/1999 on civil servants is revised, to ensure that the requirements for being a candidate for a civil service post are based on the skills required for a specific job, in the strict sense of the term, in accordance with Article 1(2) of the Convention. Meanwhile, it asks the Government to provide information on the application of this article in practice, particularly on the number of persons whose candidature to a civil service post might have been set aside under section 54(j) of Act No. 188/1999.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.