Top

To date, the CRPD Committee has adopted 21 views on individual communications under the Optional Protocol to the CRPD, addressing different procedural and substantive issues. Together with the concluding observations, the general comments and the reports on inquiry procedures, these views constitute an important part of the CRPD Committee jurisprudence. To facilitate access, IDA produces summaries of the views adopted by the CRPD Committee.

Please find below brief descriptions of the cases in reverse chronological order (most recent first) and the link to download IDA´s summary on each case.

Importantly, please note that IDA´s summaries contain links and instructions to access the full texts of the Views adopted by the Committee in the different UN languages available. 

Mr. Munir Al Adam and ADHRB v Saudi Arabia - Case 38.2016 - 20.09.2018
The author submits that, when he was imprisoned by the State, he already had a partial hearing impairment of his right hear. He submitted that the acts of torture that he suffered when during his detention worsened his disability, leading to the total loss of hearing of his right year. The author was convicted to the death penalty. The Committee adopted interim measures requesting not to carry out the death penalty while the case was pending. The Committee concluded that the State violated article 13(1) (access to justice) read alone and in conjunction with articles 4, 15,16, and 25 of the Convention, as he was mistreated while in detention, not timely provided with a lawyer nor with the medical services he required. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

Iuliia Domina and Max Bendtsen v Denmark - Case 39.2017 - 31.08.2018
Iuliia Domina, a national of Ukraine, and Max Bendtsen, a national of Denmark, form a married couple with a son born in 2015. Max Bendtsen suffers from brain damage following a car accident in 2009. Their application for family reunification in the State and for a residence permit for Iuliia Domina has been rejected by the State. The Committee concluded that this rejection on the basis of criteria that was indirectly discriminatory for persons with disability and had the effect of impairing or nullifying the authors’ enjoyment and exercise of the right to family life on an equal basis with others, in violation article 5 (1-2) read alone and in conjunction with article 23 (1) of the Convention. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

Ms JH v Australia - Case 35.2016 - 31.08.2018
The case concerns a deaf person who has been summoned to perform as juror in the justice system. The author request for reasonable accommodation in the form of Auslan sign language was not granted by the State. The Committee concluded that the State has failed to fulfil its obligations under articles 5 (2) and (3); and 21 (b) and (e) of the Convention an request the State to enable her participation in jury duty, providing her with reasonable accommodation in the form of Auslan interpretation in a manner that respects the confidentiality of proceedings at all stages of jury selection and court proceedings. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

Mr Y v Tanzania - Case 23.2014 - 31.08.2018
The case concerns a person with albinism who was attacked by strangers and injured in his left shoulder and cut off 3 of his right-hand fingers. Criminal procedures initiated were not effective leading to the impunity of the perpetrators, in a context where there is widely-spread belief that the body parts of a person with albinism provide wealth and prosperity, a belief that led to an increase of persecutions against persons with albinism to feed a black-market of circulating body parts of persons with albinism.  The Committee found that the State has failed to fulfil its obligations under articles 5, 7, 8, 15, 16, and 17 read alone and in conjunction with article 4, and 24 of the Convention, mainly due to the lack of related preventive, protective and investigative measures. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

This case concerns Mr. Simon Bacher, who is a person with Down syndrome, autistic and occasionally needs a wheelchair. Bacher’s father had a wooden roof structure built to cover the only access to his house to enable his mobility during bad weather. However, the neighbour filled a complaint arguing that the wooden structure violated his right to way and courts ruled on that the wooden structure had to be removed. The author claimed that Simon Bacher’s rights under Articles 3, 9, 14, 19, 25 and 28 have been violated by the courts` decisions that prevented his family from protecting the path and to enable him to carry out his daily activities. The Committee considers that the decisions of the Austrian courts did not properly consider the issue of accessibility, constituting a denial of justice for Simon Bacher, in violation of article 9 (accessibility), read alone and in conjunction with article 3 of the Convention. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

Fiona Given v Australia - Case No. 19.2014 - 16.02.2018
The case concerns a person with physical disability who wanted to vote by secret ballot on an equal basis with other electors. The author required access to an electronic voting system, but under the Electoral Act, this option was available only to persons with visual impairments. Then, she requested the assistance of an electoral officer who refused to do so. The Committee found that none of the options available could have enabled the author to exercise her right to vote on equal basis with others without having to reveal her political choice to another person. It further stressed that the obligation to implement accessibility is unconditional, noting that the technology required was already available and had been used in state level elections. The Committee concluded that the State had failed to fulfil its obligations under article 29 (a) (i) and (ii), read alone and in conjunction with articles 5 (2), 4 (1) (a), (b), (d), (e) and (g) and 9 (1) and (2) (g) of the CRPD. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

Mark Ricci v. Australia - Case 14.08.2013 - 18.08.2017
The case concerned an Australian resident who was institutionalised and sought to live independently in the community.  The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities decided to discontinue the consideration of this communication because in December 2014, Australia informed that the author has been housed in the community when the adapted social housing and funding for support services became availableDownload IDA's summary.

Back to top

Boris Makarov v Lithuania - Case 30.2015 - 18.08.2017
This case concerns the victim of a road accident who was denied access to justice and left without legal assistance when seeking to take part in the criminal investigation against the responsible for the accident. She could neither take part in the court hearings nor challenge the decisions and conclusions of the prosecutor. The Committee considered that while States have a certain margin of appreciation to determine the procedural arrangements to enable persons with disabilities to exercise their legal capacity, the relevant rights of the person concerned must be respected, which did not happen in this case. The Committee found that the State violated the victim’s rights to equal recognition before the law and access to justice Articles 12 (3) and 13 (1). Claims under Article 22 (right to privacy) were declared inadmissible. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

O.O.J. v Sweden - Case 28-2015 - 18.08.2017
This case was brought against Sweden by an Asylum seeker whose child was diagnosed with autism, among other medical diagnosis. The author claimed that the lack of autism-specific services in Nigeria and severe health consequences it would have on his son’s health were not considered by the Migration Agency who issued the deportation order. He also claimed that the deportation would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment due to the nature of his son’s disability. The Committee found the complaint inadmissible due to lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies; the expulsion order was status-barred and the family had the possibility of reapplying for residence permits. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

X v Tanzania - case no 22.2014 - 18.08.2017
The case against concerns a Tanzanian national with albinism who had one of his arms cut off by two strangers due to his condition of albinism. He claimed that his right to access to justice had been significantly limited due to the unduly prolonged investigation process. The Committee found that the State’s failure to take all necessary measures to prevent, efficiently investigate and punish acts of violence amounted to discrimination based on disability and that there had been a failure to protect his physical and mental integrity, in violation of articles 5 and 15 of the CRPD. It also considered that the suffering experienced by the author due to lack of State’s action became a cause of re-victimization and amounted to psychological torture and/or ill-treatment, violating article 17 in conjunction with article 4. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

Rodriguez Arias v Spain - case 33.2015 - 22.06.2017
The Committee discontinued the consideration of the case since the State party regularized the author’s housing situation in accordance with his initial petition. Consequently, the author was no longer at risk of eviction, and he and the State party have reached an agreement on the substantive issue raised in the communication. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

D.L. v Sweden - case no 31.2015 - 24.03.2017
The case brought against Sweden concerns a student diagnosed with autism with a “moderate development disorder”. He was denied the use of the “facilitated communication” method as a tool of communication after the Swedish Schools Inspectorate ordered the municipality to ensure that method was not used in any of the municipality’s operations. The author claimed that this decision was discriminatory and violated his right to health and education (articles 5, 24 and 25 of the CRPD). The Committee found the complaint inadmissible due to lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies; the author failed to appeal the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

LML v UK - Case no 27.2015 - 24.03.2017
This case concerns a national of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who underwent L5/S1 discectomy procedure. After an allegedly rushed surgery procedure, the author’s spinal cord membrane was ruptured, leading to a rare surgical complication. Since then, the author has unsuccessfully tried to get an appointment with a National Health Service, has visited more doctors, privately and even abroad, and her health would have deteriorated, lacking access to appropriate services in the UK. The author claims violations to several rights under the CRPD, including among others Articles 5 (equality and non-discrimination), 10 (right to life), 12 (equal recognition before the law) and 17 (Personal integrity). However, the Committee considered that the author has failed to substantiate that the conduct of State party authorities amounted to arbitrariness or a denial of justice, thus being the claims inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

D.R. v Australia - Case no 14.2013 - 24.03.2017
The case concerns a person with intellectual disability, whose impairment arose from an acquired brain injury. For more than 10 years, he was not provided with disability support services and thus could not be discharged from a “slow-stream rehabilitation service” to join a social housing. He claims that his current residential setting entails arbitrary deprivation of liberty (article 14) and a lack of privacy (article 22), and amount to a failure by the State to ensure his rights to liberty of movement (article 18), independent living (article 19) and adequate standard of living and social protection (article 28). The Committee found the complaint inadmissible due to lack of exhaustion of available domestic remedies; the author did not bring proceedings in the federal courts and did not substantiate his claims on the fact that available remedies would be unlikely to bring effective relief. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

Marlon Noble v Australia - Case 07.2012 - 10.10.2016
The case concerns an indigenous Australian national with intellectual disability who was taken into custody, after being accused of sexual criminal offences. In March 2003, he was declared unfit to plead. Nevertheless, he remained in custody from March 2003 to January 2012, when he was released on a conditional release order. He claims violations of his rights under Articles 5, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the CRPD, on account of the declaration of unfitness to plead and the consequent exclusion of due process, and consequent deprivation of liberty, both based on disability, and on the risk entailed by conditions during detention. The Committee found violations to Articles 5 (1) and (2), 12 (2) and (3), 13 (1), 14 (1) (b) and 15 of the CRPD, notably considering that, in the absence of any criminal conviction, he was detained on the basis of disability, and that the indefinite detention to which he was subjected amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment, both in contradiction to the CRPD. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

Michael Lockrey v Australia - Case 13.2013 - 8.4.2016
The case concerns a person who is deaf and requires real-time steno-captioning of formal communications to communicate. After being summoned to serve as a juror, his request of real time steno-captioning was rejected based on the fact that the law does not allow it, as it would introduce a non-jury person into the jury deliberation room. After considering several claims admissible under an exception to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies, being remedies available “unlikely to bring effective relief”, the Committee found that the State’s failure to provide the claimant with steno-captioning to perform jury duty constituted discrimination and denial of reasonable accommodation (article 5) as well as a lack of accessibility (article 9). It also considered the decision violated the claimant’s rights of freedom of expression and opinion (article 21) and access to justice (article 13), alone and in conjunction with the right to participate in political and public life (article 29). Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

Beasley v Australia - Case 11.2013 - 1.4.2016
The case concerns a person who is deaf and requires Australian sign language (Auslan) to communicate. After being summoned to serve as a juror, his request of Auslan was rejected based on the fact that the law does not allow it, as it would introduce a non-jury person into the jury deliberation room. After considering several claims admissible under an exception to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies, being remedies available “unlikely to bring effective relief”, the Committee found that the State’s failure to provide the claimant with Auslan to perform jury duty constituted discrimination and denial of reasonable accommodation (article 5) as well as a lack of accessibility (article 9). It also considered the decision violated the claimant’s rights of freedom of expression and opinion (article 21) and access to justice (article 13), alone and in conjunction with the right to participate in political and public life (article 29). Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

F v Austria - Case 21.2014 - 21.08.2015
The case was brought by an Austrian national who is blind and relies on public transportation for his daily activities. In August 2011, when extending the railway network of Line 3, the company did not equip the new stops with the digital audio system to ensure accessibility of information, preventing the author to use the transportation on an equal basis with others. Domestic courts’ decisions were contrary to the claims of the author. The Committee considered that the non-installation of the audio system resulted in a denial of access to information and communication technologies, and facilities and services open to the public on an equal basis with others, and therefore amounts to a violation of Articles 5(2) and Article 9(1) and (2)(f) and (h) of the Convention. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

AM v Australia - Case 12.2013 - 27.03.2015
A deaf person who uses sign language alleged that the practice of exempting deaf persons from jury duty, based on section 14(A)b of the New South Wales Jury Act 1977, entails violations of Articles 12, 13, 21 and 29 of Convention. The Committee recalled that for a person to claim to be a victim of a violation of a right and thus the communication be admissible, he or she must show either that an act or an omission of the State party concerned has already adversely affected his or her enjoyment of such right, or that such an effect is imminent, for example on the basis of existing law and/or judicial or administrative decision or practice.  The Committee considered that, given that the author has not yet been summoned for jury duty and there has not been an imminent prospect or a real threat of a violation occurring which is specific to the individual, the author had no victim status and thus the communication was inadmissible. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

AF v Italy - Case 9.12 - 27.03.2015 
The case concerns a person with physical disability, who competed for a position of scientific technician within the engineering department at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia. The author complained that the 50% reserved quota of article 7(2) of Law no 68/99 had not been respected in the examination procedure, as well as criticised the decision of the Council of State which validated the procedure as it had been undertaken. The Committee considered that the author did not provide any element to conclude that neither the provisions of the national legislation and its application, nor the decision by the Council of State, amounted to a violation of his individual rights, notably Article 27 of the CRPD, under the Convention. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

S.C. v Brazil - Case 10.2013 - 2-10-2014
The case concerns a woman who had been demoted after taking more than three months of medical leave in accordance with her employer's policy, following a series of injuries which led to chronic illness and the permanent impairment of her knee. The Committee found the complaint inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. However, it explored whether the complaint fell within the scope of the Convention and concluded that the difference between illness and disability is a difference of degree and not a difference of kind, and that a health impairment which is initially conceived of as illness can develop into an impairment in the context of disability because of its duration or its chronic development.  The Committee highlighted that a human rights based model of disability requires taking into account the diversity of persons with disabilities as well as the interaction between individuals with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

Jungelin v Sweden - Case 5.2011 - 2.10.2014
A woman with visual impairment claimed she was discriminated on the basis of her disability in a recruitment procedure because the public agency employer failed to provide reasonable accommodation in the form of adaptation measures, and that insufficient consideration was given by the domestic labour court to alternatives which would allow her to carry out the tasks assigned to the post, in violation of Articles 5 and 27 of the Convention.  Referring to the State's margin of appreciation, the Committee found that the domestic court had thoroughly and objectively assessed the alternatives and concluded that the author's rights had not been violated.  

Five Committee members issued a joint dissenting opinion, asserting that the domestic court failed to consider sufficiently the alternatives to ensure her employment through the perspective of Article 5, i.e. the test of proportionality should ensure, inter alia, that the measures of accommodation were requested to promote the employment of a person with disabilities, and that the entity can reasonably be expected to implement accommodation measures. The dissenting members raised the failure of the domestic court to consider the potential impact of the alternative measures on the future employment of other persons with visual impairments, highlighting that even if reasonable accommodation is in principle an individual measure, the benefit for future employees must also be taken into account. Finally, they raised the failure to consider the possibility of accessing subsidies and assistance benefits to implement measures to ensure the author's employment. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

X v Argentina - Case 08.2012 - 11.4.2014
The case concerns a prisoner with disabilities who was receiving medical treatment on a daily basis as an outpatient. X. complained of the conditions of detention, including lack of accessibility, and of the transfer between the prison and the hospital which he alleged put his life and health at risk.  Based on his right to health and rehabilitation, he repeatedly requested to be held in home arrest, all of which were denied.  The Committee found inconclusive that his life and health were put at risk by the transfer from prison to the hospital and that there was insufficient evidence to refute that his medical needs were being met. The Committee found violations of Articles 9(1), (2) and 14(2) of the Convention, due to the lack of accessibility and of accommodations to guarantee his mobility within the prison, as well as a violation of Article 17 for the precarious conditions of detention to which he was subjected as a consequence of the first violation. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

Liliane Gröninger v Germany - Case 02.2010 - 4.4.2014
This case brought by a man with disabilities, who alleged that the existing subsidy scheme for persons with disabilities to integrate in the labour force is discriminatory as it only applies to those whose full working capacity may be restored, and it does not create rights for persons with disabilities as the right to claim such a subsidy belongs to the employer. According to the Committee, the integration subsidy model did not effectively promote the employment of persons with disabilities; finding in particular that there are difficulties faced by potential employers when trying to access the subsidy; and that the administrative complexities put applicants in disadvantageous position and may in turn result in indirect discrimination. The Committee concluded that the integration subsidies scheme, as applied in this case, was not in accordance with the State party’s obligations under Article 27(1)(h), read together with Article 3(a), (b), (c) and (e), Article 4(1)(a) and Article 5(1) of the Convention. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

Zsolt Bujdosó  v Hungary - Case 04.2011 - 9.9.2013
This case concerns six persons with intellectual disabilities who had been removed from the electoral register upon being placed under guardianship, and consequently denied the right to vote in 2010 elections.  While the State party claimed that this situation had been remedied by new legislation permitting courts to individually assess one’s capacity to vote, the CRPD Committee recalled that Article 29 does not foresee any reasonable restriction, nor does it allow any exception for any group of persons with disabilities.  Hence, an exclusion of the right to vote on the basis of disability, including a restriction pursuant to an individualised assessment, constitutes discrimination on the basis of disability. The CRPD Committee concluded that the State party failed to comply with its obligations under Article 29 of the Convention, read alone and in conjunction with Article 12 of the Convention. 

It further clarifies that any reading of the European Court of Human Rights judgment Alajos Kiss v Hungary (Application no 38832/06, 20 May 2010) which suggests that one’s right to vote can be legitimately removed on the basis of an individualised judicial evaluation, does not comply with Articles 29 and 12 of the CRPD. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

S Nyusti & P Takács v Hungary - Case 01.2010 - 16.04.2013
The case was brought by two Hungarian nationals with visual impairments who had contracts for private account services with OTP bank. Despite the obligation for them to pay the same level of fees as other OTP clients, they were denied access on an equal basis with others to the use of their banking services and transactions on account of OTP’s inaccessible ATMs which lacked Braille fonts, audible instructions and voice assistance. The CRPD Committee found a violation of Article 9(2)(b), that the State party failed to comply with its obligation to ensure accessible banking services for persons with visual impairments, including those provided by OTP and other private financial institutions. The Committee upheld that compliance with this obligation requires States to take into account all aspects of accessibility, and is maintained regardless of contractual relationships concluded between individuals and private entities. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

Kenneth McAlpine v UK - Case 6.2011 - 28.09.2012
This case against the UK concerns a man with type 1 Diabetes who was made redundant from his employment. He claimed that his redundancy was based on the presumption that diabetes results in prolonged periods of time off due to illness, and that he had been the victim of disability based discrimination. He filed a complaint before the Employment Tribunal and proceedings were held during which the facts were refuted by his employer.  His first complaint was dismissed along with subsequent appeals. The Committee found that his complaint was inadmissible ratione temporis: the facts occurred prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol in the UK. Download IDA's summary.

Back to top

HM v Sweden - Case 3.2011 - 19.04.2012
The case against Sweden concerns a local municipality’s refusal to grant a building permit to a woman with a degenerative illness, who could not leave her home without great risk, for installation of a hydrotherapy pool on her property for the purposes of rehabilitation and maintaining her health.  The Committee found that the State failed to provide reasonable accommodation and fulfil its obligations concerning non-discrimination, living independently and being included in the community, health and rehabilitation resulting in violations of 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. Download IDA's summary.