Forum: European Court of Human Rights
INTERIGHTS' role: Counsel
Keywords: Disability, postive obligations

On 27 April 2010, INTERIGHTS represented the applicant at a hearing before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Farcas v Romania. The case concerns the duties of states to ensure that public buildings and infrastructure are accessible to persons with disabilities. The hearing can be watched online from 2.30PM CEST on 27 April 2010.
 
INTERIGHTS is counsel for the applicant, Mr Alois Farcas, who has suffered from progressive muscular dystrophy since he was a teenager and has similar access needs to people using wheelchairs, although he does not use a wheelchair himself. In 2004 the applicant was effectively dismissed from the job he had held for 20 years on the grounds of his disability. When attempting to challenge his dismissal and vindicate his rights he faced insurmountable obstacles: poor or non existent access meant he could not benefit from public services open to all, he could not defend his rights in court, could not provide for himself and his family, could not contribute to society. This process was driven by the authorities’ lack of concern with eliminating the ubiquitous physical barriers preventing people with disabilities from enjoying public services on an equal footing with others, as well as by the stigma and ignorance related to disability. Mr Farcas encountered an increasing sense of isolation and disempowerment before finally taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights.
 
The applicant’s situation reflects that of many people with disabilities in Romania and beyond. This case presents the Court with a chance to establish the contours of positive duties incumbent on states to facilitate the full participation of persons with disabilities in society. It also provides the Court an opportunity to make clear that the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights apply with equal force to persons with disabilities and to set out the extent and nature of state’s positive obligations in this respect. As such, a decision on the rights of the applicant in this case may affect not just the applicant but also a significant segment of society across Council of Europe member states.
 
This case centres on fundamental human rights, including personal dignity and autonomy, access to court to protect one’s rights, and non-discrimination. At the hearing, INTERIGHTS asked the court to appreciate that protecting these rights in practice means ensuring that persons with limited mobility such as the applicant have access to and can use public places, public buildings and public transport like other citizens. The applicant’s case illustrates the devastating potential impact of lack of access and how societal barriers, ignorance in relation to the specific needs of persons with disabilities and inertia by government authorities can lead to the marginalisation and exclusion of a human being, in violation of multiple rights under the Convention.
 
Further information on the case

The applicant, born in 1964, lives in Piatra Neamt, Romania and has suffered from progressive muscular dystrophy since he was a teenager. In terms of access facilities, the applicant has similar needs as people using a wheelchair have, although he does not use a wheelchair himself. In 2004, after more than 20 years at the same job, the applicant was transferred by his employer to a position which involved undertaking repair work at the clients’ premises. This meant that it was impossible for the applicant to perform his tasks, given that most buildings in Piatra Neamt are not accessible for people with disabilities. Consequently, in April 2004, the applicant was dismissed from his job.

Subsequently, the applicant attempted to access the benefits and measures of support made available by the state on account of disability and/or unemployment. To his dismay, the applicant found that some of the buildings housing the authorities dispensing these benefits were not accessible to people with disabilities. The applicant next attempted to challenge in court his dismissal, as well as the way in which authorities catering to the needs of disabled people resolved his requests for support. The courts in Piatra Neamt, as well as the office of the local Lawyers’ Bar Association, were likewise inaccessible, which effectively prevented the applicant from claiming his rights in courts.

As a result of his dismissal, the applicant was condemned to progressive isolation and solitude. He had to give up using his car (which was specially adapted to suit his needs), as he could not afford to maintain it any longer. Inaccessible public transport prevented him from leaving his neighbourhood in order to access public services located primarily in the centre of town. Shops, the local policlinic, as well as sidewalks in his neighbourhood are equally inaccessible to people with disabilities.

The applicant argued before the European Court of Human Rights that several of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights have been infringed. Thus, the applicant argued that the absence of suitable access facilities to court buildings in Piatra Neamt represents a breach of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention. The applicant further argued that authorities have not complied with their positive duties under Article 8 to ensure that key public buildings and infrastructure are accessible to people with disabilities. In addition, the applicant complained about the arbitrariness of the process whereby his support needs were identified and benefits allocated on the basis of his disability. Finally, he argued that the authorities failed to ensure that people with disabilities enjoy access to said public services on an equal footing with the rest of the population, in breach of the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14. A successful judgment in this case would be a first for a case concerning access by persons with disabilities.

INTERIGHTS argued that the applicant’s case is readily distinguishable from earlier cases in terms of the nature and extent of the detriment he has suffered through poor accessibility. At the same time we argued that the Court is required to examine the case at hand in light of “present-day conditions”, rendering full force to the principle of a “dynamic and evolutive interpretation” of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was therefore submitted that recent developments in international and domestic law including the recently-adopted United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a binding instrument widely ratified in Europe and beyond which clarifies the rights of persons with disabilities with an emphasis on their equality, dignity and autonomy may inform the Court’s approach to the rights of people with disabilities under the Convention. Alongside this, domestic legislation including accessibility duties has existed for many years in most Council of Europe countries, including Romania, and national practice across the region has matured and developed.

Click here to read the Court’s statement of facts (in French).

Contact: Constantin Cojocariu, Europe Lawyer, at ccojocariu@interights.org.