In 2020, Equinet’s working group on Equality Law analysed the topic of reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities and prepared the ensuing discussion paper. This Discussion Paper builds upon the work done by Equinet in 2014 and the more recent background work done in order to submit, in July 2020, Equinet’s third-party intervention in the case of Toplak and Mrak v Slovenia. On the basis of this prior work, the Equality Law working group decided on main issues that needed to be explored further in this Discussion Paper that aims at giving a comparative view of the main identified problematic issues in the field of reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities to serve as a resource and practical guide to Equality Bodies and other interested stakeholders.
Discussion Paper

The introduction to this Discussion Paper, drafted by Jone Elizondo-Urrestarazu, explores the applicable legal framework, including the UNCRPD, CoE instruments and EU law and the most relevant case-law. Additionally, the lack of awareness among duty bearers and the general public is explored regarding the issues to be explored in the following chapters.
 

The first chapter, drafted by Veronika Bazalová, addresses the difference between reasonable accommodation and accessibility, concluding that even if in the legal framework these measure are easily distinguishable, practice is not as clear but due to the apparent lack of case law, it is difficult to pinpoint what are the causes of this. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the concepts of reasonable accommodation and accessibility are complementary and can strengthen each other towards better equality.

The second chapter, drafted by Lindsey Reynolds and Imane El Morabet, dwells on the scope of the duty of reasonable accommodation, providing an overview of the requirements of the reasonable accommodation duty in EU law , under the CRPD and through the analysis of some trends in how the duty is implemented at national level. The chapter concludes that there is an overall lack of clarity on the parameters of what is considered to be reasonable. Differing views were offered as to the extent to which this is problematic in practice, balancing out the pros and cons of having more concrete guidance or having the freedom and flexibility to choose in each case.

In the third chapter, Konstantinos Bartzeliotis focuses on the procedural aspects regarding who has responsibility for designing a reasonable accommodation measure. The author concludes that these procedures are mainly regulated at national level with a varying complexity, in which the CRPD Committee’s recommendations can serve as a compass for the parties involved and the national adjudicating bodies.

This Discussion paper is complemented by an annex that compiles relevant case law regarding the topic of the publication, on the basis of which the analysis was done.

Download both Discussion Paper and Annex here.

Reasonable-Accommodation-Disability-Discussion-Paper(1).pdf

• Artificial intelligence and big data
• Support for human rights systems and defenders

The EU-funded PANELFIT H2020 project on AI for Crime Prediction and Prevention held a mutual learning encounter on 19 April. FRA joined participants at the event. It also included academic researchers and data protection experts.

It aimed to brainstorm on draft guidance for researchers investigating the use of AI tools in law enforcement. The discussion focused on better defining the purposes and necessary datasets of any research on algorithmic tools for crime prevention and prediction.

Link: Die bloße Umleitung eines Fluges zu einem nahe gelegenen Flughafen begründet keinen Anspruch auf eine pauschale Ausgleichszahlung (europa.eu)

Languages available: bg es cs de et el en fr hr it hu mt pl pt ro sk sl

Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union

PRESSEMITTEILUNG Nr. 68/21

Luxemburg, den 22. April 2021

Urteil in der Rechtssache C-826/19 Austrian Airlines

Die bloße Umleitung eines Fluges zu einem nahe gelegenen Flughafen begründet keinen Anspruch auf eine pauschale Ausgleichszahlung

Die Fluggesellschaft muss dem Fluggast jedoch die Übernahme der Kosten für die Beförderung zu dem in der ursprünglichen Buchung vorgesehenen Zielflughafen oder gegebenenfalls zu einem sonstigen nahe gelegenen, mit ihm vereinbarten Zielort von sich aus anbieten

Ein Fluggast von Austrian Airlines verlangt von dieser eine pauschale Ausgleichszahlung in Höhe von 250 Euro wegen der Umleitung seines Fluges Wien-Berlin. Dieser Flug sollte ursprünglich auf dem Flughafen Berlin Tegel landen, landete schließlich aber mit fast einer Stunde Verspätung auf dem Flughafen Berlin Schönefeld. Austrian Airlines bot dem Fluggast weder einen Weitertransport noch die Übernahme der Kosten für die Beförderung von dem einen zu dem anderen Flughafen an. Während der Flughafen Berlin Tegel im Land Berlin liegt, liegt der Flughafen Berlin Schönefeld im benachbarten Land Brandenburg. (...)

Link: The mere diversion of a flight to a close-by airport does not grant a right to flat-rate compensation (europa.eu)

Languages available: bg es cs de et el en fr hr it hu mt pl pt ro sk sl

Court of Justice of the European Union

PRESS RELEASE No 68/21

Luxembourg, 22 April 2021

Judgment in Case C-826/19 WZ v Austrian Airlines AG

The mere diversion of a flight to a close-by airport does not grant a right to flat-rate compensation

However, the air carrier must, on its own initiative, offer the passenger to bear the cost of transfer either to the destination airport for which the booking was made or, where appropriate, to another close-by destination agreed with the passenger

An Austrian Airlines passenger is seeking from that air carrier flat-rate compensation of €250 for the diversion of his flight between Vienna and Berlin. While the flight was initially supposed to land in Berlin Tegel airport, it finally landed in Berlin Schönefeld airport with a delay of nearly an hour. Austrian Airlines did not offer the passenger any onward transport, nor did it offer to bear the cost of transferring the passenger between those two airports. Whereas Berlin Tegel airport is situated in the Land of Berlin, Berlin Schönefeld airport is situated in the neighbouring Land of Brandenburg. (...)

In the recent years several tragic events took place in relation with the functioning of the social welfare system: a dramatic case of domestic violence on the island of Pag, killings of the employees of the social welfare centre in the town of Đakovo, deaths from fire of the residents of family homes for the elderly and the most recent one – the death of a two-year-old girl, victim of domestic violence, who died as a result of beating.

Following each of the tragedies, issues present in the social welfare system attract a great deal of public attention. These problems have been recurring for years, as have been the announcements of the measures to deal with them.  Despite that and in spite of the warnings voiced by the experts, most notably those working in the system itself, no substantial changes have been introduced as yet, while at the same time, the recommendations aimed at its improvements, including those issued by the ombudsman institutions, remain unimplemented.

Taking into account our own mandates and those of the special ombudsman institutions in the Republic of Croatia, we were not authorised to undertake investigation procedures in some of the above mentioned cases. However, for a number of years now and in relation to several different areas, such as the protection of the persons living in poverty, including the elderly, protection from discrimination, accessibility of the social services and others, we have been warning about the overall situation in the social welfare system, as well as the conditions in which the social welfare centres operate.

A large number of our warnings is contained in our annual reports, submitted every year to the Croatian Parliament. Most of them refer to the delays in and the inefficiency of all social welfare reforms so far. All of them were, unfortunately, partial and did not result in any sort of significant improvement. After every change in the government, new strategies were being adopted and new projects started. All of this has led to breaks in the system’s continuity and lags in its modernisation and has caused frequent changes in the legal framework, making the work of the social welfare officers more difficult and imposing on them new tasks and responsibilities. These issues and shortcomings have had negative impacts on the work of the social welfare centres and, thus, also on the social service beneficiaries, who have been losing their trust in the system more and more. Changes in the system are necessary, not only to achieve better quality of services, but also to increase the safety of the social welfare system’s employees, as the attacks on social workers such as those in the towns of Đakovo and Ivanić Grad clearly show.

Our warnings also refer to the low budgetary allocations for social welfare, especially for the social benefits, insufficient intersectoral co-operation, inaccessibility of the social services, as well as to the completely inadequate monitoring of the homes for the elderly, which has not improved despite the 2020 incidents in which a number of their residents were killed in fires.

Apart from our annual reports, we issue recommendations in individual cases as well. The examples are those submitted in 2019 to the Ministry of Demography, Family, Youth and Social Policy following an extremely tragic incident of domestic violence on the island of Pag.

We recommended that the Ministry urgently provide the funds for filling out all of the planned positions in the social welfare centres and for providing them with the material resources necessary for their work, as well as to reduce the amount of administration-related tasks so that the staff could spend more time working with the individual clients and families. Our recommendations also included more efficient intersectoral co-operation, clearly defined responsibilities of everyone included in working with individuals and families and adopting a  number of legally binding protocols at both the national, as well as the county levels. Almost every social welfare centre lacks in expert employees – a fact that was corroborated by our field visits to 11 counties, resulting in the situation where some of the employees work with twice as many clients as prescribed. The centres do not have enough vehicles and the ones they do are often old and unreliable, making field work more difficult, especially in the mountainous, woodland and isolated areas, where a larger proportion of the population experience social exclusion. Almost all of the social welfare centres’ employees we spoke to stressed they were overly burdened with administrative duties, leaving them with insufficient time to work with clients and other persons seeking their help, and mentioned insufficiencies in co-operation with health care and educational institutions, the police and local and regional self-government units. As a result, they feel that, as one of the centres’ director put it, the system depends on the good will and the effort of the individual employees.

Our recommendations to the Ministry were, unfortunately, not implemented.

It needs to be stressed, on the other hand, that although the long term weaknesses and issues present in the social welfare system itself certainly contribute to tragic events, they cannot be used as an excuse for employees’ errors. What needed to have been done differently and who made a mistake in this particular case will be determined by an inspection, currently underway.

Tragedies such as this one provoke strong public reactions, especially in the social media, some of which, unfortunately, incite to violence. It is important to refrain from such messages as well as those placing collective blame – in this case, on social welfare centres’ employees. Violence must not lead to more violence.