Skip to main content

Abstract

The CRPD was adopted by the UNGA on December 13, 2006, and entered into force on May 3, 2008, together with its Optional Protocol. The Convention is the first UN human rights treaty to be adopted in the twenty-first century and is reputed to be the most rapidly negotiated ever. The CRPD aspires “to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity” (Art. 1) and marks a turning point in the approach toward disabilities. Indeed, since its adoption, it has played a vanguard role as to the promotion and protection of disability rights, as well as a driving force toward legal change at national level, including the EU level. From the first perspective, the CRPD has not only rapidly become part of the international anti-discrimination law framework, but it has also given a fundamental contribution in the acknowledgement that disability has to be seen as an evolving concept resulting “from the interaction between person with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others” and that the focus of this notion has to be centered not only on individual impairments but mainly on the barriers to participation. The CRPD, in sum, has contributed to a dramatic cultural shift of the approach towards disabilities from the so-called medical model, according to which it is the impairment itself that causes the limitation, to a social model of disability, according to which the experience of disability has to be located in the social environment rather than in the impairment. The social model to disability carries with it the inference that problems of disability have to be located squarely within society. Under this model, it is not individual limitations that are the cause of the problem but society’s failure to provide appropriate services and adequately ensure that the needs of persons with disabilities are fully taken into account in its social organization. The application of a right-based approach to disability has paved the way to the acknowledgment of the centrality of the principle of accessibility, one of the three pillars of the CRPD, in the mechanism of protection set forth by the Convention and of the pivotal role played by the right to personal mobility enshrined in Article 20.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    As far as the CRPD, see Hendricks (2007), Lawson (2007), Kayess and French (2008), and Flynn (2011).

  2. 2.

    See para. (e) of the Preamble, Article 1, para. 2; Article 2 of the CRPD.

  3. 3.

    This model involved disability activist and academics reinterpreting “disability” as social oppression and radically refocusing the agenda away from cure, treatment, care, and protection to acceptance of impairment as a positive dimension of human diversity and to the problematization and rejection of a social norm that results in exclusion. See Quinn (1999), p. 281.

  4. 4.

    Accessibility, which is included in Article 3 (General principles), is enshrined in Article 9 of the CRPD. The other two pillars are the general prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability (see Article 5, para. 2) and the States’ obligation to reasonable accommodation (Article 2 and Article 5, para. 3).

  5. 5.

    Several examples of this “force” of the CRPD might be made. However, the most striking example is represented by the amendments that several national legislation on disability has experienced as far as the incorporation of the wide-ranging notion of disability embodied in the CRPD is concerned. See, for instance, the UK 2009 Autism Act or the 2012 Croatian Social Care Act, both of them incorporating the CRPD and its definition of disability.

  6. 6.

    See WHO (2011), p. 101.

  7. 7.

    See WHO (2001), Chapter 4.

  8. 8.

    A global survey carried out in 2005 on the implementation of the United Nations Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities showed that of 114 countries that responded to the survey, 50 % had not passed relevant legislation and 48 % did not have policies in place relating to the provision of assistive devices. See South-North Centre for Dialogue and Development (2006), p. 32 ff.

  9. 9.

    See, infra, para. 4.

  10. 10.

    As for instance, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) series 7176 provides a reference set of test methods and requirements for wheelchairs.

  11. 11.

    See WHO (2011), p. 114.

  12. 12.

    According to WHO, among these principles there might be included acceptability, accessibility, adaptability, affordability, availability, and quality. See WHO and USAID (2011), p. 19. As far as examples of national strategies are concerned, see the Northern Ireland disability Strategy: Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (2013) “The Disability Strategy 2012-2015,” Belfast, OFMDFM, p. 17.

  13. 13.

    Provision of mobility devices , also, should be equitable to avoid discrepancies between genders, age, groups, impairment groups, socioeconomic groups, and geographical regions (see CRPD Committee, Concluding Observations on the initial report of El Salvador, adopted by the Committee at its tenth session (2–13 September 2013), CRPD/C/SLV/CO/1, October 8, 2013, para. 44).

  14. 14.

    See CRPD Committee, Concluding Observations on the initial report of Paraguay, adopted by the Committee at its ninth session (15–19 April 2013), CRPD/C/PRY/CO/1, May 15, 2013, at para. 52. Affordability refers to the extent to which individuals can pay for the device and/or services associated with it.

  15. 15.

    The CRPD and its Optional Protocol are the first UN human rights treaties to be signed by the European Union. As far as the history and the process of the European ratification of the CRPD, see Waddington (2009).

  16. 16.

    See Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air, [2006] OJ L 204/1. In June 2012, interpretative guidelines for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 on the rights of persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air were published by the Commission in order to facilitate and improve the application of the 2006 Regulation. See European Commission (2012), Interpretative Guidelines on the application of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air, SWD(2012) 171 final.

  17. 17.

    See Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations, [2007] OJ L 315/14.

  18. 18.

    See Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004, [2010] OJ L 334/1.

  19. 19.

    See Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004, [2011] OJ L 55/1.

  20. 20.

    See European Commission (2011), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, A European vision for Passengers: Communication on Passenger Rights in all transport modes, COM(2011) 0898 final.

  21. 21.

    See Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (Recast), [2006] OJ L 403/18.

  22. 22.

    See Recommendation of 3 March 2008 adapting Recommendation 98/376/EC on a parking card for people with disabilities, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic [2008] OJ L 63/43.

  23. 23.

    See Chapter XVII of the Council Regulation No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, [2009] OJ L 324/23.

  24. 24.

    See Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, [2003] OJ L 283/51.

  25. 25.

    See European Commission (2010), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union SEC(2010) 1161 COM(2010) 0546 final.

  26. 26.

    See European Commission, Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, European Disability Strategy 2010–2020: A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe, COM(2010) 636 final.

  27. 27.

    In general on the effect of the economic and financial crisis and protection of ESC rights of vulnerable and marginalized groups, see Fasciglione (2014).

References

  • Fasciglione M (2014) The protection of economic, social and cultural rights of persons belonging to marginalized and vulnerable groups in times of financial crisis: how to reconcile the irreconcilable? Eur Yearb Minor Issues 11:1–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn E (2011) From rhetoric to action: implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hendricks A (2007) UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Eur J Health L 14(3):273–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayess R, French P (2008) Out of darkness into light? Introducing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Hum Rights Law Rev 8(1):1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson A (2007) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: new era or false dawn? Syracuse J Int’l L & Com 34(2):563–618

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn G (1999) The human rights of people with disabilities under EU law. In: Alston P, Bustelo M, Heenan J (eds) The EU and human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 281–326

    Google Scholar 

  • South-North Centre for Dialogue and Development (2006) Global survey on government action on the implementation of the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. Office of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Disabilities, Amman

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington L (2009) Breaking new ground: the implications of ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for the European community. In: Arnardóttir OM, Quinn G (eds) The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: European and Scandinavian perspectives. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, pp 111–140

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • WHO (2001) International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO (2011) World report on disability. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO, USAID (2011) Joint position paper on the provision of mobility device in less resourced settings. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Fasciglione .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fasciglione, M. (2017). Article 20 [Personal Mobility]. In: Della Fina, V., Cera, R., Palmisano, G. (eds) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43790-3_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43790-3_24

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43788-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43790-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics