Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implementation of Article 19 of the CRPD in Hungary and Its Impact on the Deinstitutionalisation Process So Far

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Recognising Human Rights in Different Cultural Contexts

  • 652 Accesses

Abstract

Magdi Birtha discusses the implementation of Article 19—Living independently and being included in the community in the context of the continuing segregation of many persons with disabilities in large institutions, and the beginnings of deinstitutionalisation processes in Hungary. The chapter reports on research about the first six deinstitutionalisation projects designed to close large institutions in Hungary—an initiative largely driven by the ratification of the United Nations Convenion on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD 2006). Birtha takes a socio-historical-cultural approach to explore why institutions are still present in Hungary and reflects on the challenges faced in closing six institutions. The chapter also discusses the role of the European Union (EU) and the importance of the European Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF) in providing incentives for implementing Article 19 in Hungary.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
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.

    The term ‘independent living’ is derived from the Independent Living Movement, which started in the late 1960s in Berkeley, California, as a grassroots movement.

  2. 2.

    For example, in the French language, the word ‘institution’ means the structure, or the establishment; therefore, the English word ‘deinstitutionalisation’ connotes the breaking down of social structures and the system as such.

  3. 3.

    Definition of the European Network on Independent Living, see at: http://enil.eu/independent-living/definitions/ (accessed 20 August 2017).

  4. 4.

    Due to the definition of ‘disability’ in the Hungarian Disability Law, persons with psychosocial disabilities were not counted under the category ‘persons with disabilities’, but separately.

  5. 5.

    In 2007, altogether 85,283 persons lived in institutions in Hungary and the total number of staff employed in these institutions was not less than 22,584 people (KSH 2008), See: Verdes, T. (2009), ‘A ház az intézet tulajdona’, in Esély 2009/4, pp. 92–112.

  6. 6.

    Almost half of the people under guardianship are placed under plenary guardianship, which affect all aspects of their life. The other common type removes decision-making rights in certain areas (e.g. healthcare or finances) is known as partial guardianship. See more Gurbai Sándor et al. (2013): Legal Capacity in Europe. A Call to Action to Governments and to the EU. Budapest, Mental Disability Advocacy Center.

  7. 7.

    By ‘advance directives’, any person, including a person with a disability, can stipulate how major life decisions and especially treatment decisions are to be made about his or her life, at any time when he or she is unable to communicate such decisions. To date, this instrument has been primarily utilised to make advance decisions about treatment; however, its scope goes beyond this. See: Joint written comments by the International Disability Alliance, the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry, the European Disability Forum, and the European Network of (ex-) Users and Survivors of Psychiatry on Mihailovs v Latvia (Application no 35939/10).

  8. 8.

    2013. évi CLV törvény a támogatott döntéshozatalról.

  9. 9.

    See at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/factsheets/2016/european-structural-and-investment-funds-country-factsheet-hungary (last accessed 13 January 2019).

  10. 10.

    The European Disability Strategy 2010–2020 was adopted before the EU ratified the UN CRPD and it covers only eight policy areas, but not all matters that are included in the UN CRPD. For instance, independent living is not one of the eight areas, but somehow covered under participation. See: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0636:FIN:en:PDF (last accessed 10 January 2019).

  11. 11.

    Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32013R1303&from=EN (last accessed 10 January 2019).

  12. 12.

    Ex-ante conditionalities are one of the key elements of the cohesion policy reform for 2014–2020. They were introduced for the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) to ensure that all necessary institutional and strategic policy arrangements for the effective and efficient use of ESI Funds are in place at national level, before funding is released to the Member States. See: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/what/glossary/e/ex-ante-conditionalities (last accessed 10 January 2019).

  13. 13.

    More information on the ex-ante conditionalities is available at: https://communitylivingforeurope.org/exanteconditionality/ (last accessed 30 September 2017).

  14. 14.

    The 12 Member States are Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Croatia.

  15. 15.

    The research was carried out between December 2014 and March 2016, commissioned by the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union and financed by the Open Society Foundation.

  16. 16.

    Under project call TIOP 3.4.1.-A-11/1.

  17. 17.

    For instance, violation of the right to liberty will occur whenever people are denied to leave the institution without assistance.

  18. 18.

    Under project call TÁMOP 5.4.5-11-1.

  19. 19.

    Seven people took place in the Photovoice data collection between October 2015 and February 2016.

  20. 20.

    From mentor interviews the researchers knew that it was not the case in other institutions.

  21. 21.

    See: http://ataszjelenti.blog.hu/2013/09/20/belapatfalva_es_szilvasvarad (last accessed 25 February 2018).

  22. 22.

    Article 4(3) of the CRPD states that ‘In the development and implementation of legislation and policies to implement the present Convention, and in other decision-making processes concerning issues relating to persons with disabilities, States Parties shall closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities, including children with disabilities, through their representative organizations’ (UN CRPD).

References

  • Bagenstos, S. R. (2012). The past and future of deinstitutionalization litigation. Law & economics working papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass, L. (Ed.). (2008). Amit tudunk és amit nem … Az értelmi fogyatékos emberek helyzetéről Magyarországon. Budapest: Kézenfogva Alapítvány.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birtha, M. (2013). Mennyire lehet konstruktív egy párbeszéd?—Az ENSZ CRPD Bizottságának felülvizsgálata a Fogyatékosjogi Egyezmény magyarországi végrehajtásáról. Fundamentum (Hung Hum Rights J) (in Hungarian).

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, T., & Booth, W. (2003). In the frame: Photovoice ad mothers with learning difficulties. Disability & Society, 18(4), 431–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bugarszki, Z., Eszik, O., & Kondor, Z. (2013). Az intézményi férőhely kiváltás alakulása Magyarországon 2012–2013. ELTE-TÁTK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulic, I., Evans, J., Parker, C., Quinn, G., & Stein, M. (2009). Focus on article 19 of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. ECCL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Common European Guidelines on the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care. (2012). European expert group on the transition from institutional to community-BASED care. Online publication. Retrieved from https://deinstitutionalisationdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/guidelines-final-english.pdf.

  • Concluding observations on the initial periodic report of Hungary, adopted by the Committee at its eighth session (2012, September 17–28). CRPD/C/HUN/CO/1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Concluding observations on the initial report of the European Union. (2015). CRPD/C/EU/CO/1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Degener, T. (2014). A human rights model of disability. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283713863_A_human_rights_model_of_disability.

  • Degener, T. (2016). Disability in a human rights context. Laws, 2016(5), 35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degener, T., & Koster-Dreese, Y. (1995). Human rights and disabled persons: Essays and relevant human rights instruments. Dordrecht and Boston: M. Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Network on Independent Living. (2015). Report on personal assistance services in Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fundamental Rights Agency. (2012). Choice and control: The right to independent living Experiences of persons with intellectual disabilities and persons with mental health problems in nine EU Member States.

    Google Scholar 

  • General comment No. 5. (2017). On living independently and being included in the community, CRPD/C/GC/5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurbai, S., et al. (2013). Legal capacity in Europe. A call to action to governments and to the EU. Budapest: Mental Disability Advocacy Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Health Service Executive. (2011). Time to move on from congregated settings: A strategy for community inclusion. Report of the Working Group on Congregated Settings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kálmán, Z., & Könczei, G. (2002). A Taigetosztól az esélyegyenlőségig. Osiris kiadó.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, A. S. (2014). The development of disability rights under international law: From charity to human rights. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, Á. (2008). Az intézetben élő értelmi fogyatékos emberek helyzete. In L. Bass (Ed.), Amit tudunk és amit nem … Az értelmi fogyatékos emberek helyzetéről Magyarországon (pp. 157–177). Budapest: Kézenfogva Alapítvány.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, A., Petri, G., Balogh, A., & Birtha, M. (2016). The role of EU funding in deinstitutionalisation (DI) in Hungary and the experiences of the DI programme so far. TASZ

    Google Scholar 

  • KSH. (2008). Szociális statisztikai évkönyv, 2007. Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.

    Google Scholar 

  • KSH. (2014). 2011. évi Népszámlálás. 11. Fogyatékossággal élők. Budapest: KSH. Retrieved from http://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/idoszaki/nepsz2011/nepsz_11_2011.pdf.

  • Lewis, O. (2011). Advancing legal capacity jurisprudence. European Human Rights Law Review, 6, 700–706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, C., & Clements, L. (2012). The European Union and the right to community living. New York: Open Society Foundations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, G. (2009). Resisting the “temptation of elegance”: Can the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities socialise states to right behaviour? In O. M. Arnadóttir & G. Quinn (Eds.), The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (pp. 215–256). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, G., & Doyle, S. (2012). ‘Getting a life’—Living independently and being included in the community. UN OHCHR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, G., & Stein, M. (2009). Challenges in realizing the right to live in the community, in focus on article 19 of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. In European coalition for community living.

    Google Scholar 

  • Report of the Ad-Hoc Expert Group on the Transition from Institutional to Community Care. (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruzsics, I. (2013). A kitagolás folyamatai Európában és Magyarországon. Mentor(h)áló 2.0 Program, TÁMOP-4.1.2.B.2-13/1-2013-0008 projekt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szmukler, G., & Appelbaum, P. (2008). Treatment pressures, leverage, coercion, and compulsion in mental health care. Journal of Mental Health, 17(3), 233–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TASZ. (2014). Joghalál a törvényben: A fogyatékos személyek bármikor megfoszthatók önrendelkezési joguktól.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Its Optional Protocol.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdes, T. (2009). A ház az intézet tulajdona. Esély, 2009(4), 92–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley, J., & Johnson, K. (2003). Inclusive research with people with learning disabilities: Past, present, and futures. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Education & Behavior, 24(3), 369–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CDLP, National University of Ireland (NUI), Galway, Ireland

    Magdi Birtha

Authors
  1. Magdi Birtha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law and Politics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

    Emily Julia Kakoullis

  2. Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW, Sydney, Australia

    Kelley Johnson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Birtha, M. (2020). Implementation of Article 19 of the CRPD in Hungary and Its Impact on the Deinstitutionalisation Process So Far. In: Kakoullis, E.J., Johnson, K. (eds) Recognising Human Rights in Different Cultural Contexts. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0786-1_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0786-1_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-0785-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-0786-1

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation