Our submissions

(Contribution to OHCHR study on 'work and employment of persons with disabilities', HRC 22nd session, March 2013)
 
(Contribution to CRPD 8th & 9th sessions, 17-28 Sept 2012; 15-19 April 2013)
 
>Supplementary shadow report on Paraguay (Contribution to the CRPD 9th session, 15-19 April 2013) 
 
(Contribution to a consultation with NGOs, Intergovernmental process on the strengthening of human rights treaty bodies, letter of 9 August 2012)
 
(Contribution to the CRPD 9th session, 15-19 April 2013)
 
>Our submission for the CRPD Day of General Discussion on "Women and Girls with Disability", (17 April 2013) 
 
>Shadow report on El Salvador (Contribution to the CRPD 9th
session, 15-19 April 2013)
 
 

 

Newsroom


1. POLICY STATEMENTS

>We Need to Bridge Gap Between Well-Meaning Commitments and Long Overdue Actions, Says UN Secretary-General in Message for the International Day of Persons with Disabilities (27 November 2012)
 
>More Work Needed to Build Inclusive, Accessible Societies,  Says UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (New York, 19 November 2012)

 
 
2. RATIFICATIONS

>Iraq ratifies the CRPD Convention (March 2013)
 
>Albania and Barbados ratify the CRPD Convention (February 2013)
 
>Cambodia ratifies the CRPD Convention (December 2012)
 
>Dominica and Malta ratify the CRPD Convention (October 2012)

>Israel, Poland and Russia ratify the CRPD Convention (September 2012)


 3. CRPD AFFAIRS

>CRPD States Parties Reporting Status Update (April 2013)

>CRPD Committee concludes its 9th session and schedules a meeting with States parties for September 2013 (19 April 2013)

>CRPD Committee concludes its 8th  session, and schedules day of general discussions on 'women and girls with disabilities' (28 September 2012)

>New 9 Members elected to the CRPD Committee (CSP, 9-12 September 2012)


 4. CRPD CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

*CRPD adopts Concluding Observations on the initial reports of
>Paraguay (April 2013)
>Argentina (September 2012)
>China (September 2012)
>Hungary (September 2012) 
>Peru (April 2012),
>Spain (September 2011) and
>Tunisia (April 2011)


5. CRPD LIST OF ISSUES
 
*CRPD adopts the List of Issues on Australia, Austria and El Salvador (April 2013) and schedules the constructive dialogue with these States for the upcoming 10th session (September 2013)
 
*CRPD schedules adoption of List of Issues on AzerbaijanCosta Rica and Sweden for the upcoming 10th session (September 2013)
 
 
 6. OTHER TREATY BODIES


 
 7. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
 
 
 
  
  8. OTHERS
 
>UN Special Rapporteur Rashida Manjoo: Report to the UN General Assembly on violence against women with disabilities (October 2012)
   
>OHCHR study on violence against women and girls, and disability (HRC, 20th session, June 2012)
 
>Millennium Development Goals: a disability-inclusive development agenda towards 2015 and beyond (Report of the UN Secretary-General to the 67th session of the UN General Assembly, October 2012)  
 
 
 
 
       

Regional projects/Western Europe and North America

Go to other regions: >Africa and the Middle East       >Asia and the Pacific          >Eastern Europe and Central Asia             >Latin America and the Caribbean

 

Contents

 
 
>Austria


  

 

Spain

 
 
READ:
 


 
4. CRPD Concluding Observations below (or download here) (adopted September 2011)

 

 
 
 
 

 

United Nations

CRPD/C/ESP/CO/1


Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities

 

Distr.: General

19 October 2011

 

Original: English





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 


Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Sixth session
1923 September 2011

               Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 35 of the Convention

                   Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

               Spain

1.   The Committee considered the initial report of Spain (CRPD/C/ESP/1) at its 56th and 57th meetings (see CRPD/C/6/SR.3 and SR.4), held on 20 September 2011, and adopted the following concluding observations at its 62nd meeting, held on 23 September 2011.

         I.    Introduction

2.   The Committee welcomes the initial report of Spain, which was the first State to submit its initial report to the Committee. The Committee commends the State party for the written replies to the list of issues raised by the Committee (CRPD/C/ESP/Q/1/Add.1) and for the comprehensive responses to the questions posed during the dialogue.

3.   The Committee commends the State party for its delegation, which included among its members representatives of various Government ministries, including many senior representatives, as well as two persons with disabilities. The Committee expresses its appreciation for the spirited and fruitful dialogue held between the delegation and the members of the Committee.          

        II.    Positive aspects

4.   TheCommittee congratulates the State party for the progress made in many areas related to the rights of persons with disabilities, including the adoption of Act 26/2011 of 1 August 2011 on the normative adaptation to the Convention, amending regulations and modifying several Spanish laws in response to the Convention, and including important positive action measures in health, housing, employment and other areas. 

5.   The Committee notes with satisfaction Act 51/2003 on equality of opportunity, non-discrimination and “universal accessibility” for persons with disabilities as well as its enabling regulations, in particular the royal decrees providing for basic standards of accessibility.

6.   The Committee commends the State party for establishing independent monitoring mechanisms in full compliance with article 33, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

7.   The Committee welcomes the State party’s adoption of the Third Plan of Action for persons with disabilities, which addresses disability along gender-analysis lines, as well as the Global Action Strategy for the Employment of Persons with Disabilities 2008-2012, including its first plan of action, covering the years 2008-2010.

8.   The Committee commends the State party’s adoption of its long-term strategy for persons with disabilities (2012-2020), which includes objectives for the short and medium term.

9.   The Committee commends the State party for the high percentage (78.35 per cent) of enrolment of children with disabilities in the regular education system, and for the efforts made to maintain the funding for programmes for persons with disabilities in times of economic crisis. In this, Spain is setting a very important example of fulfilling the purpose of article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee further welcomes the commitment of the State party to avoid reducing social assistance.

10. The Committee acknowledges the efforts that the State party has made to strengthen its commitment to international cooperation by allocating earmarked funding for disability-inclusive development.

      III.    Principal areas of concern and recommendations

          A.     General principles and obligations (arts. 1 and 4)

11. The Committee takes note of the adoption of Act 26/2011, which introduces the concept of persons with disabilities as defined in the Convention and expands the protection of such persons. However, it is concerned that not all persons with disabilities are covered by the law.

12. The Committee urges the State party to ensure that all persons with disabilities enjoy protection against discrimination and have access to equal opportunities irrespective of their level of disability.

13. The Committee welcomes Act 49/2007 of 26 December 2007, which establishes the Permanent Specialized Office to deal with offences and sanctions in the areas of equal opportunities, non-discrimination and universal accessibility by persons with disabilities. However, it is concerned by the slow development and lack of promotion of this arbitration system at the regional government level, by the lack of information on the number of sanctions submitted and resolved, and by the failure of the State party to report on actions undertaken to implement this law. The Committee is concerned about the overall effectiveness of the system.

14. The Committee recommends that the State party raise awareness among persons with disabilities about the system of arbitration, increase the level of free legal aid, and ensure the regulation of offences and sanctions at the regional government level.

15. The Committee regrets the lack of information on the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations at the regional level in designing and evaluating the implementation of legislation, policy and decision-making processes, and on the participation of children with disabilities at all levels.

16. The Committee recommends that the State party take specific measures to ensure the active participation of persons with disabilities in public decision-making processes at the regional level, and to include children with disabilities at all levels.

17. The Committee takes note of Act 2/2010 of 3 March 2010 on sexual and reproductive health, which decriminalizes voluntary termination of pregnancy, allows pregnancy to be terminated up to 14 weeks and includes two specific cases in which the time limits for abortion are extended if the foetus has a disability: until 22 weeks of gestation, provided there is “a risk of serious anomalies in the foetus”, and beyond week 22 when, inter alia, “an extremely serious and incurable illness is detected in the foetus”. The Committee also notes the explanations provided by the State party for maintaining this distinction.

18. The Committee recommends that the State party abolish the distinction made in Act 2/2010 in the period allowed under law within which a pregnancy can be terminated based solely on disability.

           B.     Specific rights (arts. 5-30)

                         Equality and non-discrimination (art. 5)

19. The Committee welcomes the regulatory amendments introduced under Act 26/2011 that would abolish the need to have a disability certificate to bring a discrimination claim before a judicial body. However it regrets the lack of information on cases of discrimination, and it is concerned that persons with disabilities will still be marginalized. The Committee is further concerned by the lack of information on reasonable accommodation. It is also concerned that, in practice, disability affects parents’ guardianship or custody of their children and that legal protection against discrimination on the grounds of disability is not enforceable in cases of discrimination due to perceived disability or association with a person with a disability.

20. The Committee urges the State party to expand the protection of discrimination on the grounds of disability to explicitly cover multiple disability, perceived disability and association with a person with a disability, and to ensure the protection from denial of reasonable accommodation, as a form of discrimination, regardless of the level of disability. Moreover, guidance, awareness-raising and training should be given to ensure a better comprehension by all stakeholders, including persons with disabilities, of the concept of reasonable accommodation and prevention of discrimination. 

                         Women with disabilities (art. 6)

21. The Committee is concerned that public programmes and policies on the prevention of gender-based violence do not sufficiently take into consideration the particular situation of women with disabilities. The Committee is also concerned that employment policies do not include a comprehensive gender perspective and that unemployment, inactivity and training rates are significantly worse for women than for men with disabilities.

22. The Committee recommends that the State party:

(a)     Include a more comprehensive consideration of women with disabilities in public programmes and policies on the prevention of gender-based violence, particularly so as to ensure access for women with disability to an effective, integrated response system;

(b)     Include a gender perspective in employment policies, and particularly specific measures for women with disabilities;

(c)      Elaborate and develop strategies, policies and programmes, especially in the fields of education, employment, health and social protection, to promote the autonomy and full participation of women and girls with disability in society, and to combat violence against them.

                         Children with disabilities (art. 7)

23. The Committee is particularly concerned at the reportedly higher rates of abuse of children with disabilities in comparison with other children. The Committee is equally concerned by the lack of early identification, family interventions and informed support of children with disabilities, which puts at risk their full development and ability to express their views; and by the lack of available resources and coordinated public administration in the social, health and education services, among others.

24. The Committee recommends that the State party:

(a)     Increase efforts to promote and protect the rights of children with disabilities, and to undertake research on violence against children with disabilities, adopting measures to eradicate this violation of their rights,

(b)     Establish policies and programmes that will ensure the right of children with disabilities to express their own views; 

(c)      Develop coordinated public policies with sufficient resources to ensure inclusive access to support services that include informed therapeutic, rehabilitation and habilitation services, and care which covers the health, psychosocial and education needs of children with disabilities, in particular during early childhood.

                         Awareness-raising (art. 8)

25. The Committee commends the many initiatives taken by the State party to implement the Convention. However, it notes that more needs to be done to increase awareness in society, in the media and among persons with disabilities themselves of the rights of persons with disabilities,

26. The Committee calls upon the State party to take proactive measures to enhance awareness of the Convention and the Optional Protocol thereto at all levels, in particular among the judiciary and the legal profession, political parties, Parliament and Government officials, civil society, media, and persons with disabilities, as well as among the general public.

                         Accessibility (art. 9)

27. The Committee takes note that Act 26/2011 introduces regulatory amendments that will shorten the timelines for meeting accessibility requirements in public facilities and with respect to goods and services available to the public. However, it remains concerned at the low level of compliance with these requirements, in particular at the regional and local levels, in the private sector, and in relation to existing facilities. The Committee is aware of situations of discrimination faced by air passengers with disabilities, including situations of denial of boarding. The Committee reminds the State party that article 9 of the Convention also requires States to ensure access to information and communication.

28. The Committee recommends that sufficient financial and human resources be allocated as soon as possible to implement, promote and monitor compliance with accessibility legislation through national measures as well as through international cooperation.

                         Right to life (art. 10)

29. TheCommittee welcomes the fact that Act 26/2011 amends regulations to contain provisions to reflect the right to accessibility when granting informed consent to medical treatment. It however regrets that guardians representing persons with disabilities deemed “legally incapacitated” may validly consent to termination or withdrawal of medical treatment, nutrition or other life support for those persons. The Committee wishes to remind the State party that the right to life is absolute, and that substitute decision-making in regard to the termination or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is inconsistent with this right.

30. The Committee requests the State party to ensure that the informed consent of all persons with disabilities is secured on all matters relating to medical treatment, especially the withdrawal of treatment, nutrition or other life support.

                         Situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies (art. 11)

31. The Committee is concerned at the insufficiency of specific protocols for persons with disabilities in emergency situations.

32. The Committee calls upon the State party to review its laws and policies related to emergency situations with a view to including provisions guaranteeing the security and protection of persons with disabilities.

                         Equal recognition before the law (art. 12)

33. The Committee notes that Act 26/2011 allows a period of one year following its entry into force for the presentation of a bill to govern the scope and interpretation of article 12 of the Convention. The Committee is further concerned that no measures have been taken to replace substitute decision-making by supported decision-making in the exercise of legal capacity.

34. The Committee recommends that the State party review the laws allowing for guardianshipand trusteeship, and take action to develop laws and policies to replace regimes of substitute decision-making by supported decision-making, which respects the person’s autonomy, will and preferences. It further recommends that training be provided on this issue for all relevant public officials and other stakeholders.

                         Liberty and security of the person (art. 14)

35. The Committee takes note of the legal regime allowing the institutionalization of persons with disabilities, including persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities (“mental illness”). It is concerned at the reported trend of resorting to urgent measures of institutionalization which contain only ex post facto safeguards for the affected individuals. It is equally concerned at the reported abuse of persons with disabilities who are institutionalized in residential centres or psychiatric hospitals.

36. The Committee recommends that the State party: review its laws that allow for the deprivation of liberty on the basis of disability, including mental, psychosocial or intellectual disabilities; repeal provisions that authorize involuntary internment linked to an apparent or diagnosed disability; and adopt measures to ensure that health-care services, including all mental-health-care services, are based on the informed consent of the person concerned.

                         Integrity of the person (art. 17)

37. The Committee is concerned that persons with disabilities whose legal capacity is not recognized may be subjected to sterilization without their free and informed consent.

38. The Committee urges the State party to abolish the administration of medical treatment, in particular sterilization, without the full and informed consent of the patient; and ensure that national law especially respects women’s rights under articles 23 and 25 of the Convention.

                         Living independently and being included in the community (art. 19)

39. The Committee is concerned at the lack of resources and services to guarantee the right to live independently and to be included in the community, in particular in rural areas. It is further concerned that the choice of residence of persons with disabilities is limited by the availability of the necessary services, and that those living in residential institutions are reported to have no alternative to institutionalization. Finally, the Committee is concerned about linking eligibility of social services to a specific grade of disability. 

40. The Committee encourages the State party to ensure that an adequate level of funding is made available to effectively enable persons with disabilities: to enjoy the freedom to choose their residence on an equal basis with others; to access a full range of in-home, residential and other community services for daily life, including personal assistance; and to so enjoy reasonable accommodation so as to better integrate into their communities.

41. The Committee is concerned that the law for the promotion of autonomy limits the resources to hire personal assistants only to those persons who have level 3 disabilities and only for education and work.

42. The Committee encourages the State party to expand resources for personal assistants to all persons with disabilities in accordance with their requirements. 

                         Education (art. 24)

43. The Committee welcomes the fact that the principle of inclusion governs the schooling of pupils with special educational needs; that discrimination in education is prohibited; and that most children with disabilities are included in the regular education system. It commends the enactment of Organic Act 2/2006 on education, which obliges the education authorities to provide specialist teachers, qualified professionals and the necessary materials and resources, as well as the laws that oblige schools to make necessary curricular adjustments and diversifications for pupils with disabilities. However, the Committee is concerned by the implementation of these laws in practice, in view of reported cases of failure to provide reasonable accommodation, of continued segregation and exclusion, of financial arguments used as justification for discrimination, and of the cases of children enrolled in special education against their parents’ will. The Committee notes with concern that parents challenging the placement of their children with disabilities in special education have no possibility of appeal and that their only alternative is to educate them at their own expense or pay for the reasonable accommodation of their child in the regular education system.

44. The Committee reiterates that denial of reasonable accommodation constitutes discrimination and that the duty to provide reasonable accommodation is immediately applicable and not subject to progressive realization. It recommends that the State party:

(a)     Increase its efforts to provide reasonable accommodation in education, by: allocating sufficient financial and human resources to implement the right to inclusive education; paying particular attention to assessing the availability of teachers with specialist qualifications; and ensuring that educational departments of local governments understand their obligations under the Convention and act in conformity with its provisions;

(b)     Ensure that the decisions to place children with a disability in a special school or in special classes, or to offer them solely a reduced-standard curriculum, are taken in consultation with the parents;

(c)      Ensure that the parents of children with disabilities are not obliged to pay for the education or for the measures of reasonable accommodation in mainstream schools;

(d)     Ensure that decisions on placing children in segregated settings can be appealed swiftly and effectively.

                         Right to work (art. 27)

45. Despite a number of enabling provisions to keep persons with disabilities in employment, the Committee is concerned with the overall low rate of employment of persons with disabilities.

46. The Committee recommends that the State party develop open and advanced programmes to increase employment opportunities for women and men with disabilities.

                         Participation in political and public life (art. 29)

47. The Committee is concerned that the right to vote of persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities can be restricted if the person concerned has been deprived of his or her legal capacity, or has been placed in an institution. It is further concerned that the deprivation of this right appears to be the rule and not the exception. It regrets the lack of information on standards of evidence or grounds, and criteria used by judges when depriving persons of their right to vote. It notes with concern the number of persons with disabilities denied their right to vote.

48. The Committee recommends that all relevant legislation be reviewed to ensure that all persons with disabilities, regardless of their impairment, legal status or place of residence, have the right to vote and participate in public life on an equal basis with others. The Committee requests the State party to amend article 3 of Organic Act 5/1985, which allows the denial of the right to vote based on individualized decisions taken by a judge. The amendment should ensure that all persons with disabilities have the right to vote. Furthermore, it is recommended that all persons with disabilities who are elected to a public position are provided with all required support, including personal assistants.  

          C.     Specific obligations (arts. 31-33)

                         Statistics and data collection (art. 31)

49. The Committee regrets the low level of disaggregated data on persons with disabilities. The Committee recalls that such information is indispensable to: understanding the situations of specific groups of persons with disabilities in the State party who may be subject to varying degrees of vulnerability; developing laws, policies and programmes adapted to their situations; and assessing the implementation of the Convention.

50. The Committee recommends that the State party systematize the collection, analysis and dissemination of data, disaggregated by sex, age and disability; enhance capacity-building in this regard; and develop gender-sensitive indicators to support legislative developments, policymaking and institutional strengthening for monitoring and reporting on progress made with regard to the implementation of the various provisions of the Convention.

51. The Committee regrets that the situation of children with disabilities is not reflected in the data on the protection of children.

52. The Committee recommends that the State party systematically collect, analyse and disseminate data, disaggregated by sex, age and disability, on abuse and violence against children.

                         

                          Follow-up and dissemination

53. TheCommittee requests the State party to implement the recommendations of the Committee as contained in the present concluding observations. The Committee recommends that the State party transmit the concluding observations for consideration and action to members of the Government and Parliament, officials in the relevant Ministries, and members of relevant professional groups, such as education, medical and legal professionals, as well as to local authorities and the media, using modern social communication strategies.

54. The Committee strongly encourages the State party to involve civil society organizations, in particular disabled persons’ organizations, in the preparation of its second periodic report.        

55. The Committee requests the State party to disseminate the present concluding observations widely, including to non-governmental organizations and representative organizations of persons with disabilities, as well as to persons with disabilities themselves and members of their families, in accessible formats.

                            Next report

56. The Committee requests the State party to submit its second periodic report by no later than 3 December 2015, and to include therein information on the implementation of the present concluding observations.


   ____________________________



 
 
 

 

Sweden

 
INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINTS

First CRPD Committee review of an individual petition (Communication Nr 3/2011, April 2012, case Ms H.M. vs Sweden)


READ:
 
1. Text below or download, here

2. DisabCouncil's commentary here

 

 
 

 

United Nations

CRPD/C/7/D/3/2011


Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities

Distr.: General

21 May 2012

 

Original: English





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

               Communication No. 3/2011

Views adopted by the Committee at its 7th session,
16 to 27 April 2012

Submitted by:                                                             H.M. (represented by Mr. H-E.G. and Mrs. B.G.)

Alleged victim:                                                The author

State Party:                                                      Sweden

Date of communication:                               6 December 2010 (initial submission)

Document references:                                    Special Rapporteur’s rule 70 decision, transmitted to the State party on 9 February 2011 (not issued in document form)

Date of adoption of Views:                          19 April 2012

Subject matter:                                                Refusal to grant building permission for the construction of a hydrotherapy pool for the rehabilitation of a person with a physical disability on grounds of incompatibility of the extension in question with the city development plan

Procedural issues:                                          Non-substantiation of claims;

Substantive issues:                                         Purpose of the Convention; discrimination on the basis of disability; reasonable accommodation; general principles enshrined in the Convention; general obligations under the Convention; equality and non-discrimination; accessibility; right to life; liberty and security of the person; living independently and being included in the community; personal mobility; health; habilitation and rehabilitation; adequate standard of living and social protection

Articles of the Convention:                         1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 9; 10; 14; 19; 20; 25; 26 and 28

Articles of the Optional Protocol:              2(e)

[Annex]


Annex

               Views of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities under article 5 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (7th session)concerning

               Communication No. 3/2011*

Submitted by:                                                  H.M. (represented by Mr. H-E.G. and Mrs. B.G.)

Alleged victim:                                                The author

State Party:                                                      Sweden

Date of communication:                                6 December 2010 (initial submission)

       The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, established under article 34 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,

       Meeting on 19 April 2012,

       Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 3/2011, submitted to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by Ms. H.M. under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,

       Having taken into account all written information made available to it by the author of the communication, and the State party,

                                Adopts the following:

                         Views under article 5, of the Optional Protocol

1.   The author of the communication, dated 6 December 2010, is Ms. H. M., a Swedish national born in 1978. The author claims to be a victim of a violation by Sweden of her rights under articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 19, 20, 25, 26 and 28 of the Convention on the Rights for Persons with Disabilities. The Optional Protocol to the Convention entered into force for Sweden on 15 January 2009. The author is represented by Mr. H-E.G. and Mrs. B.G..

                         The facts as presented by the author

2.1 The author has a chronic connective tissue disorder, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS), which has led to hypermobility (excessive over-flexibility of joints), severe luxations and sub-luxations (dislocation of joints), fragile and easily damaged blood vessels, weak muscles and severe chronic neuralgia. She has not been able to walk or stand for the last eight years, and she has difficulty sitting and lying down. Her impairment has resulted in her being bedridden for the last two years, which has weakened her even further. The author cannot take medicines, since she also has atypical hypersensitivity to medicines.

2.2 The author can no longer leave her house or be transported to hospital or rehabilitation care because of the increased risk of injuries that may be incurred due to her impairment. The destructive course of the impairment is still continuing and the only type of rehabilitation that could stop its progress is hydrotherapy, which in the author’s circumstances would only be practicable in an indoor pool in her house. Water therapy is recommended for Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome by specialists. In the author's case, it would improve her quality of life as, for example, her joints would become more stable, she would build more muscle, her blood circulation would improve and her pain and suffering would be alleviated.

2.3 On 7 December 2009, the author applied for planning permission for an extension of approximately 63 square metres to the house on her privately owned piece of land. The extension would to a large extent (approximately 45 square metres)[1] be on land where building is not permitted.

2.4 On 17 December 2009, the request for building permission was rejected by the Örebo Local Housing Committee. The author appealed the decision of the Local Housing Committee to the Örebro County Council. The appeal was rejected on 3 March 2010. This decision was appealed to the Karlstad Administrative Court. On 28 April 2010, the Administrative Court granted the appeal and referred the author’s application for planning permission back to the Örebro Local Housing Committee for a new hearing of the case.

2.5 The Administrative Court stated, in particular, the following:

Against the background of the fact that the major part of the remaining plot of land must not be built on, an alternative placement according to the plan is not possible. […] It has not been stated that H. M. could meet the need for an exercise pool with a smaller extension in closer accordance with the plan. As far as the documents of this case go, it is not a realistic alternative to move to another house where her need for an exercise pool can be met, or to move to another suitable institution. Furthermore it is evident from the medical documents that an exercise pool would be of particularly great importance to the life situation and life quality of H. M. and that it would also be cost saving for her future care and attention. With reference to what has now been stated, the Administrative Court, in a balance of interests in accordance with Chapter 1, § 5 of the Planning and Building Act, finds that the interests of H. M. to use the land for the extension in question should have preference over the general public interest to preserve the area in complete compliance with the detail plan. Against the background of the extraordinary cause which is the basis for this evaluation, the Administrative Court cannot see a risk that an approval would lead to similar applications for the approval of similar measures on other properties in the area. Consequently, the grounds referred to by the Local Housing Committee do not constitute a reason for refusing a building permission.”[2]

2.6 The Municipality of Örebro appealed the decision of the Administrative Court to the Administrative Court of Appeal (Gothenburg) and, on 1 July 2010, the Administrative Court of Appeal refused the author’s application for planning permission. It stated, in particular, the following:

The building permission that H. M. has applied for goes against the regulations of the detail plan in the sense that the proposed construction to a large extent (approximately 48 square meters) will be placed on the so-called “dotted land”, which means on land where, according to the plan,  it is not allowed to build. Like the County Council has stated, such a construction cannot be permitted to be built even as a minor divergence from the detail plan with regard to what is stated in Chapter 8, § 11 of the Planning and Building Act.”[3]

2.7 The author petitioned the Supreme Administrative Court (Stockholm) for leave to appeal the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal. The author’s petition was refused on 5 August 2010.

The complaint

3.1 The author claims that she has been discriminated against by the decisions of the State party’s administrative bodies and courts, since they have failed to take into account her rights to equal opportunity for rehabilitation and improved health. She has thereby been refused her right to a worthwhile quality of life. The refusals are based merely on public interest to preserve the development plan and have become more of a matter of principle, which has a severe impact on the living conditions of a person with disability. Furthermore, her house has previously been adapted to her disability-related needs at a cost of EUR 42,000. The new extension would not be visible from the street, and the land parcel behind her house, for which the planning permission has been applied, is thickly wooded, with many bushes and clumps of trees. The neighbours have also given their consent to the extension. The author argues that a single departure from the development plan, should the application be approved, would not be detrimental to the surroundings. Given the exceptional nature of her case, there would be no risk of repeated similar requests.

3.2 The author maintains that the only hope of rehabilitation is hydrotherapy at home, any other options being excluded, and encloses two medical certificates dated 29 September 2009 and 28 June 2010 as documentary evidence that, for her rehabilitation, no alternative to hydrotherapy at home exists. The author also considers that the health, interest and well-being of a person with disability come above the public interest of not allowing any buildings on land that has been marked out as areas which should not be built on. She also recalls that she is an owner of the piece of land for which the building permission in question was requested.

3.3 The consequences of planning permission not being granted would result in a significant risk for the author of becoming bedridden for an indefinite period of time, with severe muscular atrophy, stretched ligaments, severe dislocations with, inter alia, reduced chest expansion, which would impede full inhalation and cause acute pain. In the absence of rehabilitation, the author runs the risk of eventually having to enter a care institution.

3.4 The author requests the Committee to determine whether the Convention has priority over the decision of the Local Housing Committee, which was based on the State party’s Planning and Building Act. In other words, the Committee is requested to decide on whether the author’s needs for rehabilitation and care due to her disability are of primary consideration over the public interest as protected by the Local Housing Committee.

                         State party's observations on admissibility and merits

4.1 On 5 September 2011, the State party provided its observations on the admissibility and merits of the author’s communication. It submits that the Planning and Building Act contains provisions concerning the planning of land and water areas and concerning building. Municipalities regulate the use and development of land via a detailed development plan. Both public and private interests are to be considered when issues are addressed under the Act. A building permit is required for most new buildings and extensions. In order for a building permit to be granted within an area covered by a detailed development plan, the planned measures must not contravene the detailed development plan.

4.2 A building permit may be granted for a measure that involves a minor departure from the development plan, if the departure is compatible with the purpose of the plan. Examples of what constitutes a minor departure include a construction that encroaches on protected land by just a few metres, or that exceeds the maximum building height for structural reasons. The Supreme Administrative Court considered, in a judgement delivered in 1990, that a measure which involved construction on 125 square metres of protected land did not constitute a minor departure. When an authority or court assesses whether a certain measure which departs from the detailed development plan could be considered a minor departure, both private and public interests should be taken into account.  The author has not claimed that the measure for which she has applied for a building permit constitutes a minor departure from the detailed development plan in force. Under such circumstances, the granting of a building permit is not possible under the Planning and Building Act.

4.3 According to the Health and Medical Services Act, the obligation to offer good health and medical services is incumbent on county councils. The obligation includes, inter alia, offering rehabilitation and supplying assistive devices for persons with disabilities. These measures should be planned in consultation with the individual. A patient should always be offered treatment, where a scientifically proven, tried and tested treatment is available. When several treatment options are available, the patient should be given the option of choosing the treatment he or she prefers. However, in the case of multiple treatment options, the benefits of a certain treatment must be weighed against its cost. The Discrimination Act contains provisions concerning the prohibition of discrimination connected with disabilities.

4.4 The State party states that in November 2009, the author applied to Örebro Municipality for a building permit to build an extension on land of which large parts are protected under the detailed development plan. The extension would cover approximately 65 square metres (45 square metres of which on protected land) and contain a hydrotherapy pool for rehabilitation. She requested an exemption from the prohibition on building under the applicable development plan, with reference to her complicated health situation. She submitted medical certificates from a doctor for the purpose of corroborating her need for a hydrotherapy pool. The doctor in question does not work for the county council. In a supplementary document to her application for a building permit, she stated that the proposed location of the planned extension was the only possible location on the property, primarily for functional reasons.

4.5 In December 2009, the Municipality rejected the author’s request, considering that the extension would not constitute a minor departure from the development plan. In January 2010, the author filed an appeal to the County Administrative Board, arguing that there were exceptional grounds for granting a building permit, given her health problems, and referred to documentation submitted previously. The documents stated that a pool of the specified size is necessary for the alleviation of her symptoms and rehabilitation. The author also submitted that she has practically no opportunity to leave the property due to the high risk of infection and mobility problems. In March 2010, the County Administrative Board rejected her appeal on the grounds that the measure contravenes the provisions of the development plan and the departure from the plan is of a type and size that cannot be considered minor.

4.6 The author appealed against this decision to the Administrative Court in Karlstad, maintaining that hydrotherapy in a pool in her home environment is the only possibility of improving her situation. She claimed that transportation by ambulance to other hydrotherapy facilities is not an option, as ambulance staff are unwilling to transport her due to her fragile condition; nor can she move out, since she is dependent on her parents, who live nearby. She added that the extension would not be visible from the street, affect the overall appearance of the area or alter its character. In April 2010, the Administrative Court overturned the decision of the municipality, and the case was referred back to the municipality for new consideration. The Court found that the author’s interest in using the land for the extension in question should take precedence over the public interest in maintaining the area entirely in accordance with the development plan. The judgement was not unanimous.

4.7 In May 2010, Örebro Municipality appealed against the judgement to the Administrative Court of Appeal in Gothenburg. In July 2010, the Administrative Court of Appeal overturned the judgement of the Administrative Court, and upheld the decision of the Municipality and the County Administrative Board, stating that the decision-making authorities and courts cannot disregard existing legislation and other provisions when assessing a building permit matter, that the building permit for which the author had applied contravenes the development plan and that such a measure cannot be considered a minor departure from the plan. The judgement was adopted unanimously.

4.8 In July 2010, the author appealed against the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, claiming that the decision to reject her application was not reasonable or proportionate to the damage caused to her. She maintained that her need for a hydrotherapy pool outweighs the interest of following the existing development plan. On 5 August 2010, the Supreme Administrative Court decided not to grant leave to appeal, whereby the decision to reject the author’s application became final and not subject to further appeal.

4.9 With regard to the admissibility of the communication, the State party submits that it is not aware of the present matter having been or being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement and acknowledges that all domestic remedies have been exhausted, as required by article 2(c) and 2(d) of the Optional Protocol. However, it maintains that the author’s claims fail to rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility and should be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 2(e) of the Optional Protocol.

4.10               On the merits, the State party notes the author’s claims that she has been discriminated against as a result of negative decisions adopted by the Swedish authorities and courts because her right to rehabilitation and good health has not been taken into consideration, and the principle of proportionality has not been applied. The State party further submits that the burden of proof for an alleged violation of the Convention, at least initially, rests with the author. This includes the onus of demonstrating the existence of the circumstances invoked in support of the complaint. It also points out, with reference to the request that the author be granted a building permit, that the Committee does not have the authority to overturn a judgement by a Swedish Court or a decision by a Swedish authority. Nor does it have the power to replace the domestic judgement or decision with a decision of its own. The Committee can only conclude either that the circumstances of the case reveal a violation of the Convention or that there has been no such violation.

4.11               The State party maintains that the author has merely referred to a number of articles of the Convention without advancing grounds for how her rights under these articles have been violated. Therefore, it can only explain in general terms how Swedish legislation relates to and fulfils the requirements contained in the articles that may be relevant in this case. Other articles referred to by the author do not have a bearing on the present case and the State party would not submit any comments with regard to them.

4.12               Article 5 of the Convention prescribes that all persons are equal before and under the law and prohibits any discrimination on grounds of disability. This is a fundamental and clear premise in Swedish legislation and follows from the Swedish Constitution. The relevant Act in this case, the Planning and Building Act, is applied in the same way to all, whether they have disabilities or not. Nor are there any clauses in the Act that might lead indirectly to discrimination against persons with disabilities. The rejection of the application for a building permit in this case is in no way due to the author’s disability, but rather consistent with practice that applies equally to all.

4.13               As to the author’s claim under article 19 of the Convention, there is nothing in Swedish legislation to prevent persons with disabilities from choosing their place of residence or way of life. All measures offered at municipal level, e.g. service accommodation, are non-compulsory for individuals. A number of alternative measures are available from municipalities in order to make it easier for individuals with specific needs to live in their own homes, e.g. contribution to home adaptation, personal assistance and home help.

4.14               With regard to the claims under articles 25 and 26 of the Convention, the State party recalls that in Sweden county councils have the obligation to provide health and medical services, including rehabilitation, to everyone who is resident in the county council area. Accordingly, it is not the application of the Planning and Building Act that should secure the author’s rights in accordance with articles 25 and 26 of the Convention. Instead, these rights should be fulfilled by way of the county council carrying out its obligations according to the Health and Medical Services Act. The State party maintains that it must be up to the author to account for her contacts with the county council and for the treatment she has been offered, for example by submitting relevant medical documentation. However, she has not made any such submissions in this regard. In the absence of an account by the applicant on this issue, the State party assumes that the author has been offered treatment in accordance with her needs. The author has not substantiated her allegation that she cannot obtain adequate care if she is not allowed to build a hydrotherapy pool in accordance with her request for a building permit.

4.15               In the light of the foregoing, the laws applied in the present case are not discriminatory. The decisions and judgements delivered by domestic authorities were not motivated by the author’s disability and are therefore not discriminatory within the meaning of article 5 of the Convention. Moreover, none of these decisions violates article 5 or any other provisions of the Convention in any other way.

4.16               In conclusion, the State party submits that the present communication does not reveal a violation of the Convention. Since the author’s claims under various articles of the Convention fail to rise to the basic level of substantiation, the communication should be declared inadmissible for lack of substantiation.

Author's comments on the State party's observations

5.1 On 14 November 2011, the author provided her comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits.

5.2 The author claims that the refusal to issue building permission amounts to discrimination, since all possible avenues of recourse that might ensure her rehabilitation, as a “functionally disabled person”, have been exhausted. The opposition to the construction of a hydrotherapy pool in connection with the adapted accommodation in her home would deprive her of treatment absolutely necessary for her health condition. She submits that the application of laws and regulations which appear to be neutral has proved to be unfair towards her and will have an indirect effect of discrimination. The fact that a Swedish “functionally disabled citizen” cannot obtain the lawful right to adequate rehabilitation, through an application for building permission for special adaptation of her home, will amount to a violation of the Convention.

5.3 The author notes that the State party in its observations contends that no violation of the Convention has taken place, and refers to a building permission case from 1990 which received a negative decision against a departure from the plan of an area of 125 square metres– a considerably larger area than the building extension of 45 square metres requested by her. The author questions the relevance of the reference to a case dating from 1990, on a matter of a completely different kind. She claims that, in her case, a restrictive interpretation of the Building Act of 1987 regarding protected land has been applied.

5.4 The author further notes that, notwithstanding the magnitude of the departure from the plan in the building permission, there is still a requirement for life-enhancing circumstances for a “functionally disabled person” with a rightful claim to equality with regard to quality of life. Claims for the applicability of the principle of proportionality can be made in a case where the purpose and interest of the individual would strongly outweigh the interests of society at large. A nominally larger departure from the Planning and Building Act can probably be regarded as relatively small from the point of view of society, while it would be of vital importance in ensuring her quality of life, including her right to good health.

5.5 It is right that both the Planning and Building Act and the Health Act are stipulated, to uphold the building regulations and health rights relating to citizens with regard both to building norms and health laws. However, the author claims that her rights as a “functionally disabled person” cannot be accommodated via the national health laws. Since a departure from the Planning and Building Act is not permitted for the specific purpose, a disabled person is not being provided with proper health care appropriate to his/her condition. As a result, the “functionally disabled person” in question is exposed to discrimination, since no measures have been taken in order to comply with her right to good health care.

5.6 According to the author, due to the degree of disability and the state of her health, her right to rehabilitation, as set out in articles 25 and 26 of the Convention, can only be secured by way of an application for building permission. In the author’s opinion, the extent of the State party’s reliance on the national health laws is of little concern when the obvious need of a person with a disability cannot be met through the interpretation and application of these laws.

5.7 With regard to the State party’s argument that everyone is equal before the law, the author submits that it must be possible to apply the law in such a manner that no one in society suffers. She claims that, by ratifying the Convention, the State party has undertaken to provide for the rights of persons with disabilities.

5.8 As to her health situation, the author submits that the doctor who issued the certificate has his own practice and is connected to the County Council. She further claims that relevant medical documentation was supplied with the application for the building permission. This doctor visits her regularly since she is no longer able to go to the County Council’s institutions for health care and rehabilitation due to her seriously reduced functional ability. Information as to her psychological condition, as well as the medical measures warranted, was provided with the application for building permission and with the subsequent appeals. The national health laws referred to by the State party cannot be claimed to apply to the author’s case.

5.9 The author has also provided a supplementary medical report issued by the Head of the Neurology Clinic of the Örebro University Hospital on 24 October 2007. According to the report, the author’s “condition is hereditary and medically untreatable. Different types of aids can be offered but they must always be adapted to the situation of the patient […] Treatment is also often required in the home since the patient cannot be moved to different institutions for treatment. This leads to higher costs of living and handicap compensation can therefore come into question when an assessment has been completed”.[4] The author concludes that treatment at home was previously prescribed in 2007 and that, in order to maintain the muscular structure, protect the connective tissue and reduce the pain which cannot be treated with medicine, her last resort is rehabilitative hydrotherapy at home. Her already limited anatomical ability would not allow for any other form of treatment. The right to the claims of the National Health law can only be fulfilled by allowing a specific departure from the plan in the building permission for her special needs.


State party’s further observations

6.   On 10 January 2012, the State party informed the Committee that it maintains its observations on admissibility and merits of the communication, as submitted to the Committee on 5 September 2011.

                         Issues and proceedings before the Committee

                         Consideration of admissibility

7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities must, in accordance with rule 65 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Convention.

7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 2(c) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter has not already been examined by the Committee or has been or is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that no objection has been raised by the State party in connection with the exhaustion of domestic remedies and considers that the requirements of article 2(d) of the Optional Protocol have been met.

7.3 The Committee considers that articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, in view of their general character, do not in principle give rise to free-standing claims under the Convention, and therefore can be invoked in the framework of individual communications under the Optional Protocol only in conjunction with other substantive rights guaranteed under the Convention. In the circumstances of the present communication, the Committee considers that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2(e) of the Optional Protocol.

7.4 The Committee notes that the author has invoked a violation of article 9 of the Convention (accessibility), 10 (right to life), 14 (liberty and security of the person), 20 (personal mobility), without however providing further substantiation as to how these provisions may have been violated. Therefore, the Committee considers that these claims are insufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, and are thus inadmissible under article 2(e), of the Optional Protocol.

7.5 The Committee considers that the author’s remaining allegations under articles 3, 4, 5, 19, 25, 26 and 28, of the Convention, have been sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, and proceeds to their examination on the merits.

Consideration of the merits

8.1 The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has considered this communication in the light of all the information received, in accordance with article 5 of the Optional Protocol and rule 73, paragraph 1, of the Committee’s rules of procedure.

8.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations of discrimination in view of the fact that the State party’s competent authorities, when considering her application for permission to build a hydrotherapy pool that would meet her rehabilitation needs, failed to apply the principle of proportionality and weigh her interests in using the plot of land that she owns for the construction of the hydrotherapy pool against the general interest in preserving the area in question in strict compliance with the development plan. It further notes the State party’s argument that the Planning and Building Act is applied equally to all, whether the person has a disability or not, and that the Act contains no clauses that would indirectly lead to discrimination against persons with disabilities.

8.3 The Committee recalls, with reference to article 2, paragraph 3, of the Convention, that discrimination on the basis of disability’ means any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.” The Committee observes that a law which is applied in a neutral manner may have a discriminatory effect when the particular circumstances of the individuals to whom it is applied are not taken into consideration. The right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention can be violated when States, without objective and reasonable justification, fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different.

8.4 The definition of discrimination on the basis of disability in article 2, paragraph 3, of the Convention explicitly states that “it includes all forms of discrimination, including denial of reasonable accommodation”. Additionally, article 2, paragraph 4, defines reasonable accommodation as “necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms”.

8.5 In the present case, the information before the Committee shows that the author’s health condition is critical and access to a hydrotherapy pool at home is essential and an effective – in this case the only effective – means to meet her health needs. Appropriate modification and adjustments would thus require a departure from the development plan, in order to allow the building of a hydrotherapy pool. The Committee notes that the State party has not indicated that this departure would impose a “disproportionate or undue burden”. In this connection, the Committee notes that the Planning and Building Act allows for departure from the development plan, and that it can thus accommodate, when necessary in a particular case, an application for reasonable accommodation aimed at ensuring to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of all human rights on an equal basis with others and without any discrimination. On the basis of the information before it, the Committee therefore cannot conclude that the approval of a departure from the development plan in the author’s case would impose a “disproportionate or undue burden” on the State party.

8.6 The Committee recalls that article 25 of the Convention, when referring to the right to health, stipulates that “States Parties recognize that persons with disabilities have the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination on the basis of disability. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure access for persons with disabilities to health services that are gender-sensitive, including health-related rehabilitation.

8.7 At the same time, the Convention refers to habilitation and rehabilitation in article 26, and states that “States Parties shall take effective and appropriate measures, including through peer support, to enable persons with disabilities to attain and maintain maximum independence, full physical, mental, social and vocational ability, and full inclusion and participation in all aspects of life”, through comprehensive habilitation and rehabilitation services and programmes, in such a way that these services and programmes “begin at the earliest possible stage, and are based on the multidisciplinary assessment of individual needs and strengths”.

8.8 In this regard, the Committee notes that the State party, when rejecting the author’s application for a building permit, did not address the specific circumstances of her case and her particular disability-related needs. The Committee therefore considers that the decisions of the domestic authorities to refuse a departure from the development plan in order to allow the building of the hydrotherapy pool were disproportionate and produced a discriminatory effect that adversely affected the author’s access, as a person with disability, to the health care and rehabilitation required for her specific health condition. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the author’s rights under articles 5(1), 5(3), 25 and the State Party’s obligations under article 26 of the Convention, read alone and in conjunction with articles 3 (b), (d), and (e), and 4(1) (d) of the Convention, have been violated.

8.9 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that, in the absence of an indoor hydrotherapy pool at home, she will eventually have to enter a specialized health-care institution, and that the State party did not refute the author’s allegations. In this regard, the Committee recalls the provision in article 19(b) of the Convention, which requires States parties to take effective and appropriate measures to facilitate full enjoyment by persons with disabilities of their equal right to live and participate in their communities by ensuring that persons with disabilities “have access to a range of in-home, residential and other community support services, including personal assistance necessary to support living and inclusion in the community, and to prevent isolation or segregation from the community”. The rejection of the author’s application for a building permit has deprived her of access to hydrotherapy, the only option that could support her living and inclusion in the community. The Committee therefore concludes that the author's rights under article 19(b) of the Convention, have been violated.

8.10               Having reached this conclusion, the Committee does not consider it necessary to address the author’s claims under article 28 of the Convention.

9.   Acting under article 5 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, and in the light of all the above considerations, the Committee is of the view that the State party has failed to fulfil its obligations under articles 5(1), 5(3), 19(b), 25 and 26, read alone and in conjunction with articles 3 (b), (d) and (e), and 4(1) (d), of the Convention. The Committee therefore makes the following recommendations to the State party:

1.       Concerning the author: The State party is under an obligation to remedy the violation of the author’s rights under the Convention, including by reconsidering her application for a building permit for a hydrotherapy pool, taking into account the Committee’s Views. The State party should also provide adequate compensation to the author for the costs incurred in filing this communication;

2.       General: the State party is under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future, including by ensuring that its legislation and the manner in which it is applied by domestic courts is consistent with the State party’s obligations to ensure that legislation does not have the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of any right for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.

10. In accordance with article 5 of the Optional Protocol and rule 75 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the State party shall submit to the Committee, within six months, a written response, including any information on any action taken in the light of the Views and recommendations of the Committee. The State party is also requested to publish the Committee's Views, to have them translated into the official language of the State party, and circulate them widely, in accessible formats, in order to reach all sectors of the population.


[Adopted in English, French, Spanish, Arabic and Chinese, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Russian as part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.]

             



 
  

 

Austria

 
 
READ:
 


2. CRPD List of Issues (forthcoming, April 2013,  CRPD 9th session)


3. Austria Reply to List of Issues (forthcoming)


4. Forthcoming (CRPD Constructive Dialogue with the State party (September 2013, CRPD 10th session)




> DisabCouncil's Shadow Report on Austria (forthcoming)




 
 
 
 
 
 


            
 


 
 
 
 
 
 

Our capacity building tools

 

 
 
 

Essential readings

 

 

Join our mailing list

Keep up to date with our
latest news.

Enter your Email


 

©Disability Council International 2012, all rights reserved       About us    Members only    Contact us: P.O. Box 45 1239 Collex, Geneva, Switzerland | Tel. +41774032345 | Fax. +41225802781 |