| Home | Overview | Disability | Employment | Services | Education | Benefits | Business | Advice | Links | More... |
|
These pages do not apply outside the United Kingdom
(though people in other countries covered by the European Convention on Human Rights may also find this page interesting). |
This page summarises various cases on positive obligations in favour of disabled people under article 8 of the European the Convention on Human Rights. See also Article 8 generally.
Full judgments are available on the European Court of Human Rights case law database (HUDOC).
(1988)
A physically disabled person went on holiday and found that bathing establishments were not equipped with the facilities needed to enable disabled people to gain access to the beach and the sea, eg special access ramps. He complained that the Italian authorities had failed to enforce Italian laws requiring this.
The court said: "Private life, in the Court's view, includes a person's physical and psychological integrity; the guarantee afforded by Article 8 of the Convention is primarily intended to ensure the development, without outside interference, of the personality of each individual in his relations with other human beings" (para 32).
While the essential object of Article 8 was to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, there may also be positive obligations inherent in effective respect for private or family life. These obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private life even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves. However regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the general interest and the interests of the individual, while the State has, in any event, a margin of appreciation (para 33).
The Court had held that a State has obligations of this type where it had found a direct and immediate link between the measures sought by an applicant and the latter's private and/or family life (para 34).
In the present case, however, the right asserted by Mr Botta, namely the right to gain access to the beach and the sea at a place distant from his normal place of residence during his holidays, concerned interpersonal relations of such broad and indeterminate scope that there could be no conceivable direct link between the measures the State was urged to take in order to make good the omissions of the private bathing establishments and the applicant's private life.
Article 14 did not apply. It only applied within the ambit of another Convention right. This case was not within the ambit of Article 8.
Appl no. 36448/97
The applicant suffered from a "thermal disability" i.e. cold temperatures and changes in temperature caused him intense muscular pain. He was often forced to use a wheelchair. He complained about the local administrative authorities had failed to provide him with suitably adapted accommodation adequate to his disability, notwithstanding that such an obligation was established by the relevant provincial legislation.
The Court said, citing Botta, that while the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities, this provision does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference: in addition to this negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in effective respect for private life. A State has obligations of this type where there is a direct and immediate link between the measures sought by an applicant and the latter's private life.
However the Court dismissed the present application as manifestly ill-founded. The authorities had allocated to the applicant an appartment found for him by a Commission for the study of metabolic diseases, and was willing to carry out the further works indicated by the Commission. It was not for the Court to review the decisions taken by the local authorities based on the assessment made by the Commission for the study of metabolic diseases as to the adequacy of an apartment.
Appl no. 38621/97
The applicants complained that various buildings offering public services in the town where they lived were not accessible to people with certain impairments. These included the post office, the police stations, the customs office, the District Office, the district social-security office, cinemas, the District Court, various lawyers' offices, most specialist doctors' surgeries and the town swimming pool. This was due to inadequate enforcement of regulations requiring removal or architectual barriers.
However the claim failed. The Court considered that Article 8 of the Convention cannot be taken to be generally applicable each time the first applicant's everyday life is disrupted; it applies only in exceptional cases where her lack of access to public buildings and buildings open to the public affects her life in such a way as to interfere with her right to personal development and her right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world. In such circumstances, the State might have a positive obligation to ensure access to the buildings in question. In the instant case, however, the rights relied on are too broad and indeterminate as the applicants have failed to give precise details of the alleged obstacles and have not adduced persuasive evidence of any interference with their private life. In the Court's view, the first applicant had not demonstrated the existence of a special link between the lack of access to the buildings in question and the particular needs of her private life. In view of the large number of buildings complained of, doubts remained as to whether the first applicant needs to use them on a daily basis and whether there is a direct and immediate link between the measures the State is being urged to take and the applicants' private life.
Appl no. 27677/02
The applicant suffered from a disease characterised by progressive muscle degeneration. He was unable to stand, walk or lift his arms, and his manual and digital functions were virtually absent. He used an electric wheelchair. For every act he needed or wished to perform, including eating and drinking, he was completely dependent on assistance from third persons. His parents requested their health insurance fund to provide him with an expensive robotic arm, which would enable him to perform many acts unassited. This was refused.
The Court rejected the complaint as manifestly ill-founded. The Court cited the cases above and said that, even assuming the required special link existed here between the situation complained of and the particular needs of the applicant, the State's margin of appreciation was even wider when, as in this case, the issues involve an assessment of the priorities in the context of the allocation of limited State resources. In view of their familiarity with the demands made on the health care system as well as with the funds available to meet those demands, the national authorities are in a better position to carry out this assessment than an international court.
Homepage | DDA in outline | Meaning of "disability" | Employment | Goods and services | Education | Human Rights Act | Proposed changes | Social security | Advice | Links | What's new | Site index | Privacy (cookies) | Disclaimer
© Allan Tyrer 2000-2006
Last updated 12th February, 2006
More detail
Authorities
Article 8 cases
