Message: "F" against Austria. Message No. 21/2014. The decision was made by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) August 21, 2015
In 2014, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Austria.
Subject of the message: access to up-to-date information on public transport on an equal basis with others.
Substantive issues: access to information and communication technologies; facilities and services open to the public on an equal basis; the right to individual mobility and independent lifestyle.
The Committee's legal position: The Committee recalls that "the concept of accessibility concerns groups, while the concept of reasonable accommodation concerns individuals. This means that the obligation to provide accessibility is an ex ante obligation. (Expected, assumed.) Thus, Participating States are obliged to ensure accessibility before receiving individual requests to enter a place or use a service."..The Committee recalls that "the obligation to implement accessibility is unconditional, i.e. an entity obliged to ensure accessibility cannot justify non-fulfillment of this task by referring to the burden of providing access to persons with disabilities" (paragraph 8.4 of the decision).
People with disabilities face technical and environmental barriers, such as the lack of information in an accessible format. In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Convention, "States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities have access, on an equal basis with others, to transport, information and communications, including information and communication technologies and systems." According to the sub-item. (f) Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Convention, "the States Parties accept... appropriate measures to develop other appropriate forms of assistance and support for persons with disabilities that provide them with access to information.".. The Committee recalls that the importance of information and communication technologies lies in their ability to create opportunities for the provision of a wide variety of services, modify existing services and increase the demand for access to information and knowledge, especially in relation to underserved or socially excluded groups of the population, such as persons with disabilities. From this point of view, new technologies can be used to promote the full and equal participation of persons with disabilities in society, but only if they are designed and manufactured in such a way as to ensure their accessibility. New investments, research and production should contribute to the elimination of inequality, not the creation of new barriers, therefore, in the sub-item. (h) Article 9, paragraph 2, of the Convention calls upon States parties to encourage the design, development, production and dissemination of initially available information and communication technologies and systems so that the availability of these technologies and systems is achieved at minimal cost. The Committee further recalls that, in accordance with paragraph 2 of art. 5 of the Convention "States Parties prohibit any discrimination on the basis of disability and guarantee persons with disabilities equal and effective legal protection against discrimination on any ground" and that denial of access to the physical environment, transport, information and communications, as well as to services open to the public, should be explicitly defined as a prohibited act of discrimination (para. 8.5 solutions).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee takes note of the decision of the District Court of May 2, 2013, confirmed by the Regional Court on July 15, 2013, that the absence of a digital audio system is not an obstacle to the use of transport by visually impaired people; that the information provided visually is also posted on the Internet and is accessible to visually impaired people who have speech recognition software, and that the author can use the tram without information provided to sighted passengers (paragraph 8.2 of the decision).
The Committee notes the State party's argument that the audio system is "in no way a prerequisite for the use of public transport"; that the author can definitely achieve the "goal of daily use" of one of the modes of public transport without an audio system; that the audio system does not provide information that is absolutely necessary for passengers, therefore its existence is only it only affects the "way of using the tram"; That the visual information system has been expanded as part of efforts to ensure that hearing-impaired people can use trams in Linz without hindrance; that the Convention does not impose an obligation to equip public transport with all imaginable means to facilitate its use, and that the choice between equal alternatives remains with the service provider... The Committee notes that, first of all, the audio system was installed at the main transfer points with several tram lines and that "in the meantime" all other stops were equipped with a linear warning system that allows passengers waiting at the stop to activate a portable transmitter so that blind people can receive information about the route number and the direction of movement of the arriving or a means of public transport located at a bus stop.... The Committee takes into account the information provided by the State party that general information on travel times and on projected or planned communication violations can be found on the Internet by all passengers on tram route 3 using a speech recognition system... The Committee notes... the author's arguments that the lack of a digital audio system on tram route 3 does not allow him to find a stop, get the relevant information he needs when traveling by tram, and, therefore, independently use tram route 3 on an equal basis with others (p. 8.3 solutions).
The Committee notes that the information visually available at the stops of route 3 is an additional service aimed at simplifying the use of the tram route, and that as such it is an integral part of the transport services provided. Thus, the Committee is faced with the task of assessing whether the State party has taken sufficient measures to ensure that information on transport services provided to persons without disabilities is also provided on an equal basis to visually impaired people (paragraph 8.6 of the decision).
The Committee notes that Linz Linien GmbH began equipping the city's tram stops with digital audio systems in March 2004. In August 2011, it extended the tram line of route 3. However, none of the stops on the extended line of Route 3 were equipped with a digital audio system, which was already known to service providers and could have been installed at limited cost at the time of construction of the new line... The Committee notes the author's argument that an audio system would allow him and other visually impaired people to immediately receive up-to-date information provided visually on an equal basis with others, whereas existing alternatives, in particular various applications available via the Internet and mobile phone, as well as a linear notification system, do not provide such an opportunity. Thus, the failure of the State party to install an audio system during the extension of the tram line led to a denial of access to information and communication technologies and to facilities and services open to the public on an equal basis with others and therefore constitutes a violation of paragraphs 2 of Article 5, paragraph 1 of Article 9 and sub-paragraph. (f) and (h) paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Convention (paragraph 8.7 of the decision).
The Committee's conclusions: the State party has not fulfilled its obligations under article 5, paragraph 2, article 9, paragraph 1, and sub-paragraph (f) and (h) paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Convention (paragraph 9 of the decision).