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 the preparation of complaints. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Austria.
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities found that the author, who was deaf and spoke Austrian sign language, was constantly assisted by two teachers who spoke Austrian sign language and sign language interpreters during her studies at the educational institution, including during oral exams, that her curriculum was adapted and she received support in learning and correctional training, including visual educational materials. These measures were coordinated with the author, her parents and the relevant institutions and took into account the individual needs of the author. The Committee concluded that the State party had fulfilled its obligations 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 author's rights under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities have not been violated.
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, a cruel language. However, since 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, from the author's point of view, 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 assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it was established that the author of the communication was constantly assisted by two teachers who spoke Austrian sign language and sign language interpreters, including during oral exams, her curriculum was adapted and she received educational support and remedial training, including visual educational materials. 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. 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 available information 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 taken note of the author's claim that the State party did not take into account her best interests, and the administrative and judicial authorities never asked 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 demonstrating how her case had been influenced by the alleged neglect of 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, 24 and 30 of the Convention (paragraph 7.7 of the Views).