Specially trained guide dogs help remove, mitigate or overcome the effects of disability. Their purpose is to compensate for a certain handicap. Such dogs are indispensable parts of the lives of people with disabilities. They allow them to exercise their right to free movement and independence.

Currently, the law does not regulate the rights of persons accompanied by specially trained guide dogs. While these rights may be inferred from the Anti-Discrimination Act, their enforcement in practice is far from effective. In the Czech Republic, there are no legal rules defining the rights of people accompanied by guide dogs.

The Public Defender of Rights has been engaged in the subject of specially trained guide dogs for a long time, specifically since 2009. In 2010, this engagement resulted in issuing the Recommendation of the Public Defender of Rights on the access of guide dogs to public areas. The current proposal, therefore, presents a logical next step in this direction. For this reason, the Defender recommended that the Government adopt a law that would regulate the rights of persons with disabilities who use specially trained guide dogs, encompassing the following areas:

1. Definition of public areas that are freely accessible by persons accompanied by specially trained guide dogs. These include, for example, office buildings, courts, cultural establishments or public transport vehicles. “Freely accessible” means that the accompaniment by a guide dog is not subject to any fees or any additional rules such as compulsory muzzling. Similarly, this law should ensure unrestricted access to education, work and housing. In this context, a guide dog is an inseparable part of the accompanied person. The same regulation should also apply to guide dog trainers.
2. Specification of the guide dog training. The Czech legislation does not regulate neither the status, nor the conditions of the training of dogs intended to accompany persons with disabilities. There is no independent national inspection body in the Czech Republic that would assess the training provided or the trainers’ professional qualifications. There is no accreditation centre that would guarantee the trained dogs’ quality.

The Government Committee for Persons with Disabilities discussed the recommendation for the Government and also recommended that the Government adopt a resolution for the relevant law to be drawn up and submitted for approval.

The Government accepted the recommendation.

Having inquired into the case, the Defender concluded that vegetarianism can be considered a world view within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Anti-Discrimination Act. If a vegetarian refuses to consume meat dishes, this expression of his or her world view can be considered essential within the meaning of Article 9 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, this does not mean that the preference must be respected under any and all circumstances.

The Defender approached the Ministry of Education and the Brno University Hospital which informed her that the purpose of tasting all prepared dishes before they are served is to carry out sensory evaluation of their quality and provide safe therapeutic nutrition to clients (of healthcare facilities; it is necessary to evaluate whether or not a dish is suitable and safe). This process is also a part of the curriculum. The Defender therefore believes that compulsory tasting of dishes follows a legitimate purpose, i.e. to ensure safe therapeutic nutrition and appropriate education of students, which is necessary for their work as nutritional therapists; this is in line with the accreditation and practical requirements for the performance of this job. The complainant argued that she did not need to taste the meat, because she had eaten it in the past and, therefore, she knew the taste of meat dishes; she also said she would cook alternative (meat free) dishes. Such arguments, however, are irrelevant to checking the dishes that have been prepared by others. The Defender has, therefore, found the requirement to taste all dishes as appropriate and necessary.

Despite the fact that the complainant’s world view, i.e. vegetarianism, was infringed during her education by the requirement of tasting all dishes, including those containing meat, it did not constitute indirect discrimination within the meaning of the Anti-Discrimination Act. This requirement is in fact an acceptable form of different treatment within the meaning of the Anti-Discrimination Act and, therefore, the Defender concluded that no discrimination occurred in the complainant’s case.