On March 24, 2022, the case was won in the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Заголовок: On March 24, 2022, the case was won in the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Сведения: 2024-05-14 06:05:17

The case of "M. Keck versus Austria." Views of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities dated March 24, 2022. Communication No. 50/2018.

In 2018, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Austria.

As seen from the text of the Considerations, the author is deaf, and her native language is Austrian sign language. In elementary school, her education was bilingual - in German and Austrian sign language. However, starting in 2007, in secondary school, senior secondary school and commercial school, as well as in specialized matriculation exam preparation courses, she was provided only with translation from German into Austrian sign language and studied according to the curriculum for deaf students. The lack of bilingual education was unfavorable for her, since simultaneous interpretation was selective and therefore the information transmitted was not always complete. This was compounded by the lack of qualifications of some translators. Moreover, she could not systematically take notes while watching the sign language translation. This affected her academic performance in mathematics and German (point 2.1 of the Considerations). The author claimed that the State party discriminated against her by forcing her to study in German and be certified as if German were her mother tongue, by not allowing teaching in Austrian sign language and by not establishing Austrian sign language as a compulsory subject (paragraph 3.2 of the Considerations).

The Committee's legal position: in order to ensure equality and non-discrimination of deaf children in educational institutions, they should be provided with a sign language learning environment with deaf peers and deaf adults as role models. Insufficient sign language proficiency by teachers working with deaf children and the lack of schools with accessible conditions for deaf children deprive them of educational opportunities, which is considered discrimination. The Committee recalls ... that, in order to increase the accessibility of the educational system and the content of school curricula, it is necessary to promote and use sign language, Braille, alternative fonts, as well as reinforcing and alternative methods, methods and formats of communication and orientation, in accordance with article 24, paragraph 3 (a), of the Convention, with particular attention to appropriate languages, as well as methods and means of communication used by blind, deaf and deafblind students. He also draws attention to the fact that deaf and hard of hearing students should be given opportunities to learn sign language, while measures should be taken to recognize and promote the linguistic identity of the deaf (paragraph 7.3 of the Considerations).

The Committee recalls that article 2 of the Convention defines "discrimination on the basis of disability" as any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability, the purpose or result of which is to diminish or deny the recognition, realization or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other area, and includes all forms of discrimination, including denial of reasonable accommodation. He also points out: the expression "on an equal basis with others", on the one hand, means that no more or less rights or benefits are granted to persons with disabilities than to the general population and, on the other hand, it requires States parties to take specific specific measures to ensure de facto equality of persons with disabilities so that they They could actually enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Committee further recalls that progressive realization, as required by article 4 (paragraph 2) of the Convention, means that States parties have undertaken a specific and ongoing obligation to move towards the full implementation of article 24 as quickly and effectively as possible. However, progressive realization does not prejudice those obligations that are directly applicable: States parties have a minimum basic obligation to ensure the implementation of every aspect of the right to education, at least at a minimum level, including the right to non-discrimination in all areas of education and the right to reasonable accommodation to prevent the exclusion of persons with disabilities from the educational system. In addition, the Committee recalls that equality and non-discrimination are the cornerstone of international protection guaranteed by the Convention and do not allow for progressive realization. He emphasizes that the commitment of States parties to progressive realization implies the adoption of positive measures to reduce structural deficiencies and ensure temporary preferential treatment of persons with disabilities in order to achieve the goals of full participation and equality within society of all persons with disabilities (paragraph 7.4 of the Considerations).

The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it was established that the author was constantly assisted by two teachers who speak Austrian sign language and sign language interpreters, including during oral exams, that her curriculum was adapted and she received educational support and remedial training, including visual educational materials. He further noted that these measures were coordinated with the author, her parents and the relevant institutions and took into account the individual needs of the author. In addition, an independent sign language expert supported her in the learning process, between 2012 and 2016 she received a special education allowance in the amount of 11,270 euros, and her family received a family allowance. The Committee noted that, thanks to these measures, the author was promoted within the State party's school system, although she had to repeat the 2011/12 academic year, she was forced to change schools and chose to repeat the 2016/17 academic year. In the light of all the circumstances, the Committee concluded that, given the nature and scope of the measures taken to adapt the author, as well as her actual development and success in schools, these measures were not inappropriate, inappropriate or ineffective. Thus, the information available did not allow the Committee to conclude that the State party had failed to comply with its obligation to take concrete measures by providing reasonable accommodation to achieve the author's de facto equality so that she could enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Committee considered that the author's rights under article 5, read in conjunction with articles 21 (b) and (e), 24 and 30 (paragraph 4) of the Convention, had not been violated (paragraph 7.5 of the Views).

The Committee has noted the author's claim that the State party did not take into account her best interests, and the administrative and judicial authorities never asked her about her needs or opinions. It also took into account the State party's observation that the measures taken against the author were coordinated with her and her parents and took into account her individual needs. The Committee noted that the author had not provided additional information showing how her case had been influenced by the alleged disregard for her interests by the authorities of the State party. In view of the above, the Committee considered that the State party had not violated the author's rights under article 5, read in conjunction with article 7, of the Convention (paragraph 7.6 of the Views).

The Committee's conclusions: the facts presented did not indicate a violation of article 5, considered in conjunction with articles 7, 21 "b" and "e", 24 and 30 (paragraph 4), of the Convention (paragraph 7.7 of the Views).



© 2011-2018 Юридическая помощь в составлении жалоб в Европейский суд по правам человека. Юрист (представитель) ЕСПЧ.