Decizia privind exceptia de neconstitutionalitate a prevederilor art. 8 alin.(1) din Legea nr. 3/1977 privind pensiile de asigurari sociale de stat si asistenta sociala, MO No. 85, 26/4/1996.

The applicant alleged that women’s earlier retiring age (57 years old instead of 62 for men), as provided for by Act No. 3/1977, constituted unconstitutional discrimination.

The Constitutional Court rejected the application, and held that the non-discrimination principle “does not prohibit specific rules where situations are different (…). Otherwise, the equality principle would undermine the fundamental right to difference. (…). If general socio-professional conditions between men and women were equal, not only in a formal-legal sense, but also in a real sense, the unconstitutionality exception would obviously be well-founded. However, because of the imperatives of raising and educating children, housework, lack, in this transition period, of widely accessible economic and social means to discharge women of these tasks, as well as all the other aspects hindering their professional ascension (maternity leaves, post-natal leaves, leaves granted to take care of sick children…), women are disadvantaged compared to men. This situation will certainly fade and disappear in the future, a phenomenon which characterizes the evolution of modern societies in all European countries. However, the majority of states have adopted different retirement ages, even though they accept the gender equality principle. (…) In our Romania, these socio-professional realities are undeniable, so that the establishment of a single retirement age for both men and women will mean that the same treatment would be applied to different situations. Furthermore, other pieces of legislation provide for different treatment for men and women in other situations, for instance with regard to military service or to the above-mentioned protection measures”.