Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and EU Disability Law: Towards a Converging Vision of Equality?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The European Union as Protector and Promoter of Equality

Part of the book series: European Union and its Neighbours in a Globalized World ((EUNGW,volume 1))

  • 875 Accesses

Abstract

The conclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) by the European Union (EU) in 2010 marked a milestone in the history of EU disability equality and non-discrimination law, and also implacted on the field of EU disability law outside the sphere of non-discrimination. The CRPD is a progressive human rights treaty, the substantive provisions of which are underpinned by a model of ‘inclusive equality’, which not only views disability as arising from the interaction between individuals with impairments and societal barriers, but also seeks to make space for difference, and to give recognition to the dignity of persons with disabilities and intersectional disadvantage. The EU is bound by the CRPD to the extent of its competences, and the UN Convention has become the golden standard against which EU disability laws and policies are measured. This contribution examines the four main ways in which the CRPD has already shaped, or could potentially (further) influence, EU disability law. While this contribution focuses primarily on EU equality and non-discrimination law, it also analyzes recent legislation on accessibility. It demonstrates the extent to which the CRPD can potentially foster a robust conception of equality in EU non-discrimination law; enhance the understanding of EU non-discrimination law duties and concepts; promote a gendered approach to defining disability in EU non-discrimination law; and mainstream inclusive equality in EU disability law outside the sphere of non-discrimination.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ventegodt Liisberg (2011), p. 21.

  2. 2.

    UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (adopted by the UN General Assembly, 24 January 2007) UN Doc A/RES/61/106.

  3. 3.

    For an elaborate discussion on the model of equality contained in the CRPD, see Broderick (2015).

  4. 4.

    CRPD Committee (2018), para. 11. Inclusive equality is a term that had previously been coined by authors such as Colleen Sheppard—Sheppard (2004); and Sally Witcher—Witcher (2014).

  5. 5.

    By virtue of Article 44 CRPD (on regional integration organizations), the UN Convention was ratified by the European Union (EU) on 23 December 2010. See Council Decision 2010/48/EC concerning the conclusion of the UN Convention,OJ L 23/35 (2010).

  6. 6.

    See generally Ferri (2010).

  7. 7.

    Waddington and Broderick (2018), pp. 31–32.

  8. 8.

    Case 335/11 and Case 337/11 (joined), HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Jette Ring v. Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab and HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Lone Skouboe Werge v. Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Pro Display A/S, in liquidation, (ECJ 11 April 2013) ECLI:EU:C:2013:222, para. 30. See also, Case 363/12, Z. v. A Government department, The Board of management of a community school, (ECJ 18 March 2014) EU:C:2014:159, para. 73. See further, Case 395/15, Mohamed Daouidi v. Bootes Plus SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial, Ministerio Fiscal (ECJ 1 December 2016), ECLI:EU:C:2016:917, para. 40.

  9. 9.

    See Broderick and Ferri (2019), pp. 332–333.

  10. 10.

    See HK Danmark (Ring and Skouboe Werge), paras. 32 and 37–39; See Z.v. A Government department, para. 75; See also Case 356/12, Wolfgang Glatzel v. Freistaat Bayern (ECJ 22 May 2014), EU:C:2014:350, para. 70; See generally Waddington (2013).

  11. 11.

    Favalli and Ferri (2016), p. 549.

  12. 12.

    See generally Waddington (2018).

  13. 13.

    Council Directive 2019/882/EU on the accessibility requirements for products and services, OJ L 151/70 (2019) (EAA).

  14. 14.

    Tiller and Cross (2006), p. 518.

  15. 15.

    Broderick (2015), p. 14.

  16. 16.

    Ibid, 77.

  17. 17.

    See also Article 1 CRPD.

  18. 18.

    See generally Marks (1999).

  19. 19.

    Broderick and Ferri (2019), p. 3.

  20. 20.

    Broderick noted that the human rights model underpinned the CRPD in Broderick (2015), p. 79; other authors highlight the CRPD’s ‘disability human rights paradigm’—see Stein and Stein (2007); see also Degener (2017), pp. 41–59.

  21. 21.

    Degener (2017), pp. 41–59.

  22. 22.

    Degener (2017), p. 44.

  23. 23.

    Ibid, 47.

  24. 24.

    Ibid, 49.

  25. 25.

    Ibid, 41.

  26. 26.

    Ibid, 54.

  27. 27.

    CRPD Committee (2018), paras. 9 and 73(b).

  28. 28.

    Ibid, paras. 9 and 34.

  29. 29.

    Ibid, para. 9.

  30. 30.

    Ibid.

  31. 31.

    Árnadóttir (2009), p. 41.

  32. 32.

    Waddington (2018), p. 341.

  33. 33.

    Fourth Session of the Ad Hoc Committee, volume 5(10), September 03, 2004. <www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc4sumart07.htm> Accessed 2 October 2019.

  34. 34.

    Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2018).

  35. 35.

    Ibid, para. 25(a).

  36. 36.

    Ibid.

  37. 37.

    Broderick (2015), pp. 158–161.

  38. 38.

    Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2018), para. 18.

  39. 39.

    See also Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2018), para. 20.

  40. 40.

    Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2018), para. 20.

  41. 41.

    See generally De Paor and O’Mahony (2016). See also De Paor and Ferri (2015).

  42. 42.

    Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2018), para. 21.

  43. 43.

    Ibid, para. 36.

  44. 44.

    Fredman makes a distinction between consecutive (or sequential) multiple discrimination and additive multiple discrimination. Fredman (2016), p. 7.

  45. 45.

    Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2018), para. 19.

  46. 46.

    Ibid.

  47. 47.

    Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2018), para. 11.

  48. 48.

    For a discussion on the conceptual framework underpinning Universal Design (UD), see Hamraie (2016).

  49. 49.

    See CRPD Committee (2014), para. 13. See also CRPD Committee (2013), para. 10(2)(a).

  50. 50.

    Ferri and Favalli (2018), p. 47.

  51. 51.

    CRPD, Article 9(1) [emphasis added].

  52. 52.

    See CRPD Committee (2014), para. 1.

  53. 53.

    CRPD Committee (2018), para. 40.

  54. 54.

    Waddington and Broderick (2016), p. 45.

  55. 55.

    Charitakis (2018), pp. 45–62. See the criticisms of the CRPD Committee’s General Comment No. 2 for its failure to allude specifically to the progressively realizable nature of Article 9 CRPD in its General Comment No. 2 on Accessibility—Lawson (2018).

  56. 56.

    Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (Employment Equality Directive), OJ L 303/16–22 (2000).

  57. 57.

    Case 303/06, Coleman v. Attridge Law (ECJ 17 July 2008), ECLI:EU:C:2008:415. See generally Waddington (2009), pp. 665–681.

  58. 58.

    Trömel (2009), p. 124.

  59. 59.

    ECJ, C-303/06, Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro, 31 January 2008, ECLI:EU:C:2008:415; See Clifford (2011), footnote 48. See Waddington and Broderick (2018), pp. 74–75.

  60. 60.

    In that regard, the Advocate General cited McCrudden (2005).

  61. 61.

    See Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro, footnote 4.

  62. 62.

    On the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU CFR), see, among many others, Schütze (2012), pp. 422–428.

  63. 63.

    Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro, footnote 4.

  64. 64.

    Ibid.

  65. 65.

    Ibid, para. 8.

  66. 66.

    Ibid.

  67. 67.

    Broderick (2015), p. 225.

  68. 68.

    Ibid, citing Liebenberg (2005), p. 14.

  69. 69.

    Ibid.

  70. 70.

    Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro, para. 12.

  71. 71.

    Ibid.

  72. 72.

    Case 303/06, Coleman v. Attridge Law, (ECJ 17 July 2008), ECLI:EU:C:2008:415, para. 47.

  73. 73.

    Waddington (2009), pp. 671–672. By contrast, Ellis and Watson remark that the Court’s emphasis on grounds of discrimination ‘clearly suggests that the inclusion within the legislative aim of discrimination by association applies to all the types of discrimination proscribed by EU law, but this has yet to be confirmed by the CJEU’—Ellis and Watson (2012), p. 147.

  74. 74.

    Xenidis (2017), p. 7.

  75. 75.

    De Paor and Ferri (2015), p. 30.

  76. 76.

    It is notable that De Paor and Ferri remark that ‘even by exploiting the potential of interpretation of existing legislation by including discrimination on grounds of genetic makeup in the wider ground of (future) disability, the Employment Equality Directive offers a low degree of protection due to its limited scope’—De Paor and Ferri (2015), p. 31. See further discussion on this point, De Paor (2017), pp. 238–241.

  77. 77.

    Waddington and Broderick (2018), pp. 77–78. See De Paor and Ferri (2015), p. 29. See also Gerards and Janssen (2006), pp. 372–374.

  78. 78.

    De Paor and Ferri (2015), p. 29.

  79. 79.

    Notably, a broad understanding of the prohibition of discrimination is reflected in the proposal for a new equality directive put forward by the Commission in 2008 (whose approval and entry into force ‘should not be expected too soon’, according to Favalli and Ferri (2016), p. 548), but genetic discrimination is not specifically covered by the proposal.

  80. 80.

    Case 356/12, Wolfgang Glatzel v. Freistaat Bayern (ECJ 22 May 2014), ECLI:EU:C:2014:350, para. 75. See generally Krommendijk (2014).

  81. 81.

    Case 356/12, Wolfgang Glatzel v. Freistaat Bayern (ECJ 22 May 2014), ECLI:EU:C:2014:350.

  82. 82.

    Ward (2018), p. 41.

  83. 83.

    Ibid.

  84. 84.

    In Milkova, the CJEU read the purpose of Article 7(2) of Directive 2000/78 in light of the CRPD—Case 406/15 Milkova. (ECJ 9 March 2017), ECLI:EU:C:2017:198, paras. 47–48.

  85. 85.

    See generally HK Danmark (Ring and Skouboe Werge).

  86. 86.

    Lawson (2009), p. 93. See generally Waddington (2007).

  87. 87.

    Case 335/11 and Case 337/11 (joined), HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Jette Ring v. Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab and HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Lone Skouboe Werge v. Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Pro Display A/S, in liquidation, (ECJ 11 April 2013) ECLI:EU:C:2013:222.

  88. 88.

    Article 5, Directive 2000/78.

  89. 89.

    Proposal for a Council Directive of 2 July 2008 on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=LEGISSUM:em0008&from=EN. Accessed 2 October 2019.

  90. 90.

    Broderick (2015), pp. 158–161.

  91. 91.

    See paras. 3–5 of HK Danmark (Ring and Skouboe Werge).

  92. 92.

    See paras. 3–5 of HK Danmark (Ring and Skouboe Werge).

  93. 93.

    Version of 26 June 2019, document no. 10740/19.

  94. 94.

    Ibid, Article 41.

  95. 95.

    Version of 14 February 2018, 6073/18.

  96. 96.

    Waddington (2018), p. 353.

  97. 97.

    Bell (2009), p. 10.

  98. 98.

    Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2018), para. 25(a). On the various elements of the reasonable accommodation duty, see further Broderick (2015), pp. 158–161.

  99. 99.

    Waddington and Broderick (2018), p. 72.

  100. 100.

    See HK Danmark (Ring and Skouboe Werge), para. 58.

  101. 101.

    See Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2018), para. 24(b) and 25(a).

  102. 102.

    It should be noted that the latest publicly available version of the proposal for the new equality directive refers quite extensively to multiple discrimination—Version of 26 June 2019, document no. 10740/19.

  103. 103.

    See generally Xenidis (2017, 2018); See also Fredman (2016), pp. 62–65.

  104. 104.

    Waddington and Broderick (2018), p. 67. See also Hendricks (2010), p. 21; Xenidis (2018); Bell (2009), p. 9.

  105. 105.

    Case 443/15, David L. Parris v. Trinity College Dublin and Others (ECJ 24 November 2016), ECLI:EU:C:2016:897.

  106. 106.

    Xenidis (2017), p. 10. See recent literature, such as Atrey (2019), which discusses why intersectional discrimination should be a unique category in non-discrimination law.

  107. 107.

    Xenidis (2018), p. 69.

  108. 108.

    HK Danmark (Ring and Skouboe Werge), para. 38.

  109. 109.

    Case 13/05 Chacón Navas v. Eurest Colectividades SA, (ECJ 11 July 2006) ECLI:EU:C:2006:456.

  110. 110.

    The concept/definition of disability has been addressed by the CJEU in the following cases: Case 13/05, Chacón Navas v. Eurest Colectividades SA (ECJ 11 June 2006), ECLI:EU:C:2006:456; Case 303/06, Coleman v. Attridge Law (ECJ 17 July 2008), ECLI:EU:C:2008:415; Cases 335/11 and 337/11 (joined), HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Jette Ring v. Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab and HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Lone Skouboe Werge v. Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Pro Display A/S (Ring and Skouboe Werge), (ECJ 11 April 2013), ECLI:EU:C:2013:222; Case 363/12, Z. v. A Government department, The Board of management of a community school), (ECJ 18 March 2014), ECLI:EU:C:2014:159; Case 354/13, FOA acting on behalf of Karsten Kaltoft (ECJ 18 December 2014), ECLI:EU:C:2014:2463; Case 395/15, Daouidi v. Bootes Plus SL and Others (ECJ 1 December 2016), ECLI:EU:C:2016:917; Case 270/16, Ruiz Conejero (18 January 2018), ECLI:EU:C:2018:17; Case 406/15, Milkova (ECJ 9 March 2017), ECLI:EU:C:2017:198; and Case C-397/18 DW v. Nobel Plastiques Ibérica SA (ECJ 11 September 2019), ECLI:EU:C:2019:703.

  111. 111.

    For instance, O’Brien (2014), Favalli and Ferri (2016), Schiek (2016) and Waddington and Broderick (2018).

  112. 112.

    Waddington and Broderick (2018), p. 11. See the Kaltoft judgment in that regard.

  113. 113.

    Schiek (2016), p. 62.

  114. 114.

    Ibid, pp. 60–61.

  115. 115.

    Ibid, p. 56.

  116. 116.

    Ibid, p. 62.

  117. 117.

    Ibid, pp. 50–51 and 62.

  118. 118.

    Fredman (2016), p. 77.

  119. 119.

    Ibid, p. 10.

  120. 120.

    Ibid, p. 87.

  121. 121.

    Ibid, p. 77.

  122. 122.

    Kaltoft, para. 36.

  123. 123.

    Fredman (2016), p. 79.

  124. 124.

    Kaltoft, para. 59.

  125. 125.

    Fredman (2016), p. 79.

  126. 126.

    Ibid.

  127. 127.

    Ibid.

  128. 128.

    Ibid, p. 36.

  129. 129.

    See Atrey (2015), p. 1519.

  130. 130.

    Schiek (2016), p. 63.

  131. 131.

    Schiek (2016), p. 63.

  132. 132.

    Ferri and Favalli (2018), p. 48.

  133. 133.

    Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Approximation of the Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions of the Member States as Regards the Accessibility Requirements for Products and Services, COM (2015) 615 final of 2 December 2015.

  134. 134.

    EAA, Preamble, paras. 15 and 16.

  135. 135.

    EAA, Preamble, para. 3.

  136. 136.

    Ibid.

  137. 137.

    The next few paragraphs draw on a forthcoming chapter by Broderick in Pavia University Press (forthcoming, 2020).

  138. 138.

    EAA, Articles 7–13.

  139. 139.

    Ibid, Article 2.

  140. 140.

    Ibid, Section VII, k.

  141. 141.

    European Disability Forum (2019), p. 11.

  142. 142.

    EAA, Preamble, para. 50.

  143. 143.

    Halvorsen et al. (2017), p. 220.

  144. 144.

    See Charitakis (2018), p. 100.

  145. 145.

    See, in that regard, the forthcoming chapter by Broderick (forthcoming, 2020). See further the analysis of the European Disability Forum (2019).

  146. 146.

    Quinn and Degener (2002), p. 14.

  147. 147.

    Waddington (2015), p. 585.

References

  • Árnadóttir, Oddný Mjöll. 2009. A Future of Multidimensional Disadvantage Equality. In The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: European and Scandinavian Perspectives, ed. Oddný Mjöll Árnadóttir and Gerard Quinn, 41–66. The Hague-New York: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atrey, Shreya. 2015. Lifting as We Climb: Recognising Intersectional Gender Violence in Law. Oñati Socio-Legal Series 5: 1512–1535.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2019. Intersectional Discrimination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, Mark. 2009. Advancing EU Anti-discrimination Law: The European Commission’s 2008 Proposal for a New Directive. The Equal Rights Review 3: 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broderick, Andrea. 2015. The Long and Winding Road to Equality and Inclusion: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Cambridge-Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. Forthcoming, 2020. The European Accessibility Act: A Paradigm of Inclusive Digital Equality for Persons with Disabilities? In Building an Inclusive Digital Society for Persons with Disabilities. New Challenges and Future Potentials, ed. Carola Ricci. Pavia: Pavia University Press. 

    Google Scholar 

  • Broderick, Andrea, and Delia Ferri. 2019. International and European Disability Law and Policy: Text, Cases and Materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charitakis, Stelios. 2018. Access Denied: The Role of the European Union in Ensuring Accessibility under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Cambridge-Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifford, Jarlath. 2011. The UN Convention and Its Impact on European Equality Law. Equal Rights Review 6: 11–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on the Rights of People with Disabilities. 2013. Nyusti and Takács v Hungary, Communication No. 1/2010, UN Doc. C/9/D/1/2010, 21 June 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. General Comment No. 2: Accessibility, UN Doc. GC/CRPD/C/2, 22 May 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2018. General Comment No. 6: Equality and Non-discrimination, UN Doc. CRPD/C/GC/6, 26 April 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Paor, Aisling. 2017. Genetics, Disability and the Law: Towards an EU Legal Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Paor, Aisling, and Delia Ferri. 2015. Regulating Genetic Discrimination in the European Union: Pushing the EU into Unchartered Territory or Ushering in a New Genomic Era? European Journal of Law Reform 13: 14–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Paor, Aisling, and Charles O’Mahony. 2016. The Need to Protect Employees with Genetic Predisposition to Mental Illness? The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Case for Regulation. Industrial Law Journal 45: 525–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Degener, Theresia. 2017. A New Human Rights Model of Disability. In The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Commentary, ed. Valentina Della Fina, Rachele Cera, and Giuseppe Palmisano, 41–59. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, Evelyn, and Philippa Watson. 2012. EU Anti-discrimination Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Disability Forum. June 2019. Analysis of the European Accessibility Act. <www.edf-feph.org/newsroom/news/our-analysis-european-accessibility-act>. Accessed 12 September 2019.

  • Favalli, Silvia, and Delia Ferri. 2016. Defining Disability in the European Union Non-discrimination Legislation: Judicial Activism and Legislative Restraints. European Public Law 22: 537–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferri, Delia. 2010. The Conclusion of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by the EC/EU: A Constitutional Perspective. In European Yearbook of Disability Law, ed. Lisa Waddington and Gerard Quinn, vol. 2, 47–71. Antwerp-Portland: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferri, Delia, and Silvia Favalli. 2018. Web Accessibility for People with Disabilities in the European Union: Paving the Road to Social Inclusion. Societies 8: 40–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredman, Sandra. 2016. Intersectional Discrimination in EU Gender Equality and Non-discrimination Law. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerards, Janeke H., and Heleen L. Janssen. 2006. Regulation of Genetic and Other Health Information in a Comparative Perspective. European Journal of Health Law 13: 339–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halvorsen, Rune, Bjørn Hvinden, Jerome Bickenbach, Derri Ferri, and Ana Marta Guillén Rodriguez. 2017. The Contours of the Emerging Disability Policy in Europe: Revisiting the Multi-level and Multi-actor Framework. In The Changing Disability Policy System: Active Citizenship and Disability in Europe, ed. Rune Halvorsen, Bjørn Hvinden, Jerome Bickenbach, Derri Ferri, and Ana Marta Guillén Rodriguez, vol. 1, 215–234. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamraie, Aimi. 2016. Universal Design and the Problem of “Post-disability” Ideology. Design and Culture 8: 285–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendricks, Aart. 2010. The UN Disability Convention and (Multiple) Discrimination: Should EU Non-discrimination Law Be Modelled Accordingly?’. European Yearbook of Disability Law 2: 7–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krommendijk, Jasper. 2014. The Sudden Emergence of Charter Principles in the Glatzel Judgment of the CJEU, EUtopia law. http://eutopialaw.com/2014/06/11/the-sudden-emergence-of-charter-principles-in-the-glatzel-judgement-of-the-cjeu/. Accessed 12 September 2019.

  • Lawson, Anna. 2009. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and European Disability Law: A Catalyst for Cohesion. In The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: European and Scandinavian Perspectives, ed. Oddný Mjöll Árnadóttir and Gerard Quinn, 81–109. The Hague-New York: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. Article 9: Accessibility. In The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Commentary, ed. Michael A. Stein, Ilias Bantekas, and Dimitris Anastasiou. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebenberg, Sandra. 2005. The Value of Human Dignity in Interpreting Socio-Economic Rights. South African Journal on Human Rights 21: 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, Deborah. 1999. Dimensions of Oppression: Theorising the Embodied Subject. Disability and Society 14: 611–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrudden, Christopher. 2005. Thinking About the Discrimination Directives. European Journal of Anti-Discrimination Law 1: 17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, Charlotte. 2014. Driving Down Disability Equality? Case C-356/12, Wolfgang Glatzel v Friestaat Bayern. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 21: 723–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, Gerard, and Theresa Degener. 2002. Human Rights and Disability: The Current Use and Future Potential of United Nations Human Rights Instruments in the Context of Disability. Geneva: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiek, Dagmar. 2016. Intersectionality and the Notion of Disability in EU Discrimination Law. Common Market Law Review 53: 35–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, Robert. 2012. European Constitutional Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, Colleen. 2004. Inclusive Equality and New Forms of Social Governance. Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol24/iss1/3. Accessed 12 September 2019.

  • Stein, Michael Ashley, and Penelope Stein. 2007. Beyond Disability Civil Rights. Hastings Law Journal 58: 1203–1240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiller, Emerson H., and Frank B. Cross. 2006. What Is Legal Doctrine. Northwestern University Law Review 100: 517–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trömel, Stefan. 2009. A Personal Perspective on the Drafting History of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. European Yearbook of Disability Law: 115–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ventegodt Liisberg, Maria. 2011. Disability and Employment: A Contemporary Disability Human Rights Approach Applied to Danish, Swedish and EU Law and Policy. Cambridge-Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington, Lisa. 2007. Reasonable Accommodation. In Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Non-discrimination Law, ed. Dagmar Schiek, Lisa Waddington, and Mark Bell, 629–758. Oxford: Hart-Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Case C-303/06, S. Coleman v. Attridge Law and Steve Law, Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of 17 July 2008. Common Market Law Review 46: 665–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Equal to the Task? Re-examining EU Equality Law in Light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In European Yearbook of Disability Law, ed. Lisa Waddington, Gerard Quinn, and Eilionóir Flynn, vol. 4, 169–200. Antwerp-Portland: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. The Influence of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on EU Anti-discrimination Law. In EU Anti-discrimination Law Beyond Gender, ed. Uladzislau Belavusau and Kristin Henrard, 339–361. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington, Lisa. 2015. Saying all the Right Things and Still Getting it Wrong: The Court of Justice’s Definition of Disability and Non-Discrimination Law Maastricht. Journal of European and Comparative Law 22: 576–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington, Lisa, and Andrea Broderick (with the assistance of Poulos, Anne). 2016. Disability Law and the Duty to Reasonably Accommodate Beyond Employment: A Legal Analysis of the Situation in EU Member States. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. Combatting Disability Discrimination and Realising Equality: A Comparison of the UN CRPD and EU Equality and Non-discrimination Law. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, Angela. 2018. The Impact of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on Anti-discrimination Law: More a Whimper than a Bang? Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 20: 32–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witcher, Sally. 2014. Inclusive Equality: A Vision for Social Justice. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xenidis, Raphaële. 2017. Shaking the Normative Foundations of EU Equality Law: Evolution and Hierarchy Between Market Integration and Human Rights Rationales. European University Institute Working Paper 2017/04. <https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/45489>. Accessed 12 September 2019.

  • ———. 2018. Multiple Discrimination in EU Anti-discrimination Law: Towards Redressing Complex Inequality? In EU Anti-discrimination Law Beyond Gender, ed. Uladzislau Belavusau and Kristin Henrard. Oxford: Hart-Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maastricht University, Faculty of Law, Maastricht, Netherlands

    Andrea Broderick

Authors
  1. Andrea Broderick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Broderick .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Europa-Institut, Faculty of Law, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Thomas Giegerich

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Broderick, A. (2020). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and EU Disability Law: Towards a Converging Vision of Equality?. In: Giegerich, T. (eds) The European Union as Protector and Promoter of Equality. European Union and its Neighbours in a Globalized World, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43764-0_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43764-0_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43763-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43764-0

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation