EC Work Forum on UN CRPD Implementation in the EU

On Monday 13 May 2019 I was in Brussels for the European Commission Work Forum on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) in the EU.
(see the program here: https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=88&eventsId=1400&furtherEvents=yes&fbclid=IwAR0ZsCUG757SyyB_UMNevaZkMLpmOVAEZwcpw78D-H0BFTW1VuDdJFlRPVQ )

I was invited to represent the European Network of (Ex) Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (ENUSP, http://www.enusp.org ) and the European Disability Forum (EDF, http://www.edf-feph.org/ )
The costs were covered by the European Commission (EC). I had travelled to Brussels the evening before, and after a 5 hour train ride I had arrived around midnight at the Hotel Berlaymont. In the morning I had a good breakfast, and went to the Charlemagne Building of the European Commission.

On Monday 13 May 2019 at 9 AM the EC Work Forum on UN CRPD implementation in the EU started with a word of welcome by Emmanuelle Grange, Head of Unit Disability and Inclusion of DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion of the European Commission.

Katarina Ivankovic Knezevic, Director Social Affairs, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission, gave an Opening speech and outlined the program and explained that the Work Forum served to better address needs and rights of persons with disabilities in the EU.

The Work Forum focused on:
- Political Participation: Upcoming European Elections
- Claiming Rights under the UNCRPD: How and Where?
- Interplay between the UNCRPD and the Other International Conventions

Cosmin Boiangiu, Deputy Permanent Representative of Romania to the EU, highlighted the ambitions of the Romanian presidency of the EU to foster inclusion of marginalized groups, such as persons with disabilities and women.

Pat Clarke, Vice-President of the European Disability Forum (EDF) highlighted the importance of the themes on the program, such as the European elections, which brings a momentum of opportunities for innovation and inclusion and can bring a transition. Also, how and where to claim rights under the UN CRPD is very important. There are no rights without a remedy, and it is important that people are aware of their rights, and the right to seek justice.


At 9.30 Session 1 on “Political Participation: Upcoming European Elections” started, moderated by Ima Placencia, Senior Expert, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission. The EU is based on democracy, and aims for the highest level of inclusion at the upcoming elections. However, the practical organization of voting processes is organized at the national level of EU Member States . In order to give guidance, the European elections put a lot of efforts in the political participation of underrepresented groups, and aim to set forth a role model for inclusion in political participation.

Sophie Rattaire, Universal Accessility and Inclusion Coordinator, Comite interministeriel du Handicap (Interministerial Disability Committee) spoke about what has been done in France to ensure the right to Vote for all: Legal reforms in French law.
In France, due to guardianship status, 300.000 persons were automatically deprived of the right to vote. Since 2007 a new system was introduced where the right to vote was individually decided upon by a judge. However, this still left 80% of the persons excluded from the right to vote. Now, just a couple of weeks ago this system of deprivation of voting rights was withdrawn. The legal condition is no more barrier for the right to vote, so there are only practical and physical barriers left. France is now making efforts to raise awareness across the community on the right to vote, e.g. by posters on the voting process, including the mandatory registration, and the right to choose support or issue a proxy. The actual experience of the elections will bring more points to learn.

Cristina Frutos Lopez, Head of European Operations of the Elections Business Unit - MINSAIT (Indra Group) spoke about what happens behind the scenes during the Practical organization of disability inclusive elections.
The right to vote is a core feature of citizen’s rights. Exclusion of this right happens through discrimination (e.g. based on guardianship rulings) or when authorities fail to make election processes accessible for all, from registration, to campaign materials to the voting itself, and the results. Political participation and elections require actions beyond voting day. Electronic resources and technology can foster further inclusion, e.g. by creating accessible apps, accessible voting machines or tele-voting. In the future, voting may take many forms, e.g. multichannel-voting, allowing for variety such as physical voting, by phone, email, app, or by post etc. which would reflect diversity in communication. She highlighted that also the voting registration system needs to be fully accessible, for which a strategy still is currently lacking.

Sami Helle, Human Rights and Disability Activist, spoke about Political participation of persons with intellectual disabilities. The biggest barrier to approach or engage with political parties is the lack of accessible language and easy-to-understand materials and conceptualization. This makes it hard for persons with various disabilities to be part of the political structures and processes, to vote, or be elected. It is important to think about access, and to build bridges, not break them. Persons with intellectual disabilities want to enjoy the same rights as others. Sami Helle launched a Citizen’s Initiative in Finland in 2014, which deals with the issue of the discriminative nature of public procurement in services for people with learning disabilities.

Nora Bednarski, City Councillor, Ixelles commune (Brussels) spoke about Disability inclusiveness in Belgian local elections, and how access has been maximized in Belgium.
All citizens contribute to diversity, which is the strength of democracy. Inclusion leads to better policies, yet it also is a fundamental human right of every individual to be part of the whole. Presence and participation of persons with disabilities is essential to raise awareness on specific needs and barriers. Legal recognition alone is not enough. Barriers need to be removed, and e.g. debates and meetings need to be accessible for everyone, from door to door, from parking to screen. Persons with disabilities may face additional costs necessary to enable political participation, such as personal assistance, transport, communication equipment and technology, e.g. to join debates and meetings, or to stand for elections and e.g. campaign on the streets. In Scotland, a Support Fund was established to support persons with disabilities who choose to stand for election (name: Access to Elected Office Fund – Scotland). This proves to be a successful tool to realize more inclusion. In Belgium, the Support Fund initiative was duplicated and broadened, and an NGO in Brussels established guidance for inclusive elections for which they had an operational budget, enabling them to develop a clear set of requirements for the local reality, a media campaign, brochures, information for officials, and assistance and guidance for all stakeholders, and an option to complain if anything was found not-accessible. A survey afterwards revealed positive results.

The session was followed by a debate, where several practical and concrete questions were issued, such as on accessibility and privacy of voting machines for persons with sensory disabilities, including accessibility for deafblind persons who are often forgotten.
Also, a suggestion was made to develop a European standard for accessible elections to ensure equal participation across the EU, and to remedy differences across regions and places which may be due to resources at the local and national level. An actual standard would be preferred over a best-practice-guide, due to the difference in legal nature.

After this very interesting first session, there was a coffee break.

At 11.30, session 2 started, titled: “Claiming Rights under the UNCRPD: How and Where?”.
The session was moderated by Debbie Kohner, Secretary General of the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI), who briefly introduced the scope of the ENNHRI network, cooperating with EU on CRPD art 33 monitoring, and closely working with National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), equality bodies, Ombudsman offices, EDF, EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). She stressed the importance of citizens being able to claim their rights, which is actually the core objective of human rights, justice and policy making.

Oliver De Schutter, Professor at UCLouvain and SciencesPo and Member of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, spoke about The European Social Charter as a tool for the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities, illustrated by the enforcement of rights for inclusive education.
The European Social Charter originally dates from 1961, with a revised version in 1998. The revised charter contains e.g. various amendments that introduce a social concept of disability into the existing rights. Since 1995 there is an Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter, on Collective Complaints, which allows NGOs and unions to file complaints against states that do not comply with the obligations under the European Social Charter. E.g. Autism Europe filed a case against France on discrimination by the failure to provide inclusive education for children and youth with autism, and they won the case, despite the fact that France did make efforts for inclusive education, yet the efforts lacked focus and effect on the specific group.
The European Charter of Fundamental Rights seems to be more embedded in European legal systems, yet it’s text may be weaker, since provisions are more codified and do not merely have objectives as the European Social Charter has (e.g. right to work and fair numeration). He suggested that the European Social Charter can be a tool for the implementation of the UN CRPD.

Tena Simonovic Einwalter, Equinet President, spoke on the Role of Equality Bodies in strategic litigation. She explained that Equinet is a network of national Equality Bodies on the basis of EU Equal Treatment Directives, mandated to expose discrimination and promote human rights. The size and power of equality bodies varies, and the work ranges from surveys and reports, to recommendations, legal assistance, third party intervention in court, monitoring, supervision and awareness raising. Discrimination based on disability is receiving increasing attention, yet mainly focused on employment and less on other domains such as on the provision of goods and services (education, housing, social protection). The scope of work may be limited due to national legislation.
Strategic litigation may be done by selecting a case to achieve a specific outcome, which may be a judgement and jurisprudence, but it can also serve for awareness raising on discrimination and lack of rights, in order to put pressure on relevant actors to take measures.

Rosita Hickey, Senior Advisor, Cabinet of the European Ombudsman, explained more about The European Ombudsman and the enforcement of the UNCRPD.
The European Ombudsman can only act on issues related to the EU institutions, and not on matters in Member States. Several complaints addressed at the European Ombudsman are about employment at EU level, such as application forms and sickness schemes (and although it may only apply to the EU staff directly, it is supposed to impact as a role model for employment in the EU)
A complaint that has the potential to really change lives in Hungary was submitted to the European Ombudsman by Validity, about the illegitimacy of the use of European Social Funds to co-fund segregation, exclusion and human rights violation of persons with disabilities in an institution in Hungary. It took the European Commission over a year to reply to these very serious allegations, which was found to be an unreasonable time span according to the European Ombudsman. Also it was found that the European Commission had not done enough to give clarity on whether EU can give funding to institutions that should be closed according to the United Nations, and reference was made to the CRPD Concluding Observations on the EU, and those on Hungary. The proceedings on the illegitimacy of using European Social Funds for maintaining horrible institutions in Hungary are still ongoing.

Cristina Michels, Human Rights Officer, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, spoke about the role of the UN Special Rapporteur on Disability and the UNCRPD Committee in complaint procedures.
The work of the UN Special Rapporteur on Disability (Ms. Catalina Devandas Aguilar) comprises issuing thematic reports, country visits, technical assistance, awareness-raising and public statements, as well as a mandate for Communication Procedures. Under the Communication Procedures, individual or collective complaints can be received, after which a communication with the State will be started, which initially is confidential. States are not obligated to reply, but often show goodwill by replying to the communication, either confidential or with permission to make it public. This can result in action being taken by the State to remedy the violations.
Also the UN CRPD Optional Protocol, if ratified by the country, gives individuals the right to submit their complaints to the UN CRPD Committee.
In case of reliable and systemic gross human rights violations the UN CRPD Committee can start an inquiry if the State Party agrees (this was e.g. done on austerity measures in UK). Under article 4.1 of the Optional Protocol to the UN CRPD there is an option to request interim measures.

Another example of communications undertaken by the UN Special Rapporteur is about the Council of Europe Draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention. Based on the concerns and complaints issued by various organizations of persons with disabilities and other stakeholders, in relation to the conflict between the CoE Draft and the spirit and standards of the UN CRPD, the UN Special Rapporteur on Disability, on the Right to Health, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and the UN CRPD Committee in 2017 issued a letter to the Council of Europe to explain that the Draft Additional Protocol blatantly conflicts with several articles of the UN CRPD (such as articles 12 and 14), and should be withdrawn. The Council of Europe president of DH BIO issued a reply. This was followed by a Public statement of the UN CRPD Committee in 2018 calling on European State parties to vote against the Council of Europe Draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention. This statement can be found via the website: http://www.edf-feph.org/newsroom/news/united-nations-committee-opposes-draft-additional-protocol-oviedo-convention-and-calls

The session was followed by a short but interesting debate. A remark was made that the European Social Charter is weaker than the CRPD, and conflicting standards must be avoided, yet it can be interesting in terms of jurisprudence, collective complaint mechanisms and no requirement to exhaust domestic remedies first (contrary to the requirements before submission to the European Court for Human Rights and which can result in very lengthy proceedings).

At 13.00 the Lunch break started, and I joined the side-meeting that was initiated by EDF-members (such as ENUSP, MHE, EASPD, ENIL, Autism Europe) and other organizations (such as Human Rights Watch) on opposing the Council of Europe Draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention. It was mostly a brainstorm session to strategize further actions to stop the Draft. (For information about the campaign #WithdrawOviedo, please visit: http://www.edf-feph.org/withdraw-additional-protocol-oviedo-convention )

Pat Clark (EDF) announced that DH BIO is now examining a “concept note for a study on alternatives to involuntary measures”. This seems like a good progress, because it is a first crack in the old paradigm at the Council of Europe. In that regards it is surely positive.
Yet I reacted also more critical. I said it could also be a political move of distraction, a bribe, to keep us at the table, and still maintain the ‘first part of the draft’, on which the discussion now seems to be moving away. And also I need to question: how much difference will their guidance paper actually make, as it won’t be a binding standard, not give resources, and we also have other bodies like WHO giving firm standards nowadays. Conflicting standards should be avoided. So I am a bit skeptical. As long as the Draft still attempts to authorize coercive practices, it is unacceptable to me, regardless of the amount of ‘pleasant theories’ that surround these human right violations. So personally, I won’t give in for that, no compromise. I am also not sure if it is real progress (if in case it would be a political ‘bribe’). I suggested that maybe we should actually pull out if they don’t stop the Draft Oviedo Protocol.

Many people liked my critical view, and we discussed whether participation would be strategic. We basically agreed that yes, EDF will join the meeting in Strasbourg on 6 June. This means EDF will register a delegation comprising their members (including ENUSP), and while we welcome the positive move of starting to work on alternatives, we will remain critical and keep opposing the authorization of involuntary placement and involuntary treatment which violate the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

There was just enough time left for a very quick lunch.

At 14.30 session 3 started, titled: “Interplay between the UNCRPD and the Other International Conventions”, moderated by Catherine Naughton, Director of EDF.

Victoria Lee, Programme Manager, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, spoke about Mainstreaming the UN CRPD in other Human Rights Conventions.
The CRPD calls for an inclusive society that benefits all. Persons with disabilities were meant to benefit from all other universal human rights treaties as well, yet they were left behind and seen as an “exception to the norm”, which is why the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) was found necessary. The UN CRPD specifically challenges some traditional notions on equality and inclusion.
To illustrate, there is a difference between:
- formal equality (all getting the same), which may still result in inequality.
- substantial equality (compensation to reach the same level or norm), which puts the burden of adjustment on the individual and still isn’t the same as accommodating diversity.
- inclusive equality (where society is adjusted to accommodate diversity), so that persons with disabilities can participate equally, without barriers or additional burden.
The previous notion was that equality could be achieved purely by giving and receiving ‘additional’ support to enable persons with disabilities to “fit in”. This is now replaced by the awareness that inclusion is a human right, and the social aspects of the community should be restored to be inclusive and able to accommodate diversity, with equal dignity and equal exercise of rights for all. This means a shift from a charity-model to inclusion, from uniformity to diversity. From fixing the individual to fixing the society. This is a paradigm shift. A failure to provide ‘reasonable accommodation’ is now seen as discrimination. Rights are not an abstract concept, but need a social community response. States must take positive measures to realize equality and inclusion. The CRPD is both a shield and a sword, to protect and promote rights.

Within the UN, the various treaty bodies interact and exchange information and concepts, in order to form a harmonized human rights framework. There is consensus to include persons with disabilities across all levels at the UN, e.g. in humanitarian action, in the Sustainable Development Goals.
The new paradigm of equality and non-discrimination, and the conceptualization of inclusion as a core human right, provides guidance to the interpretation of human rights at other human rights bodies, and has also been adopted in the jurisprudence by other treaty bodies, such as the Committee on the Convention on Rights of the Child (CRC), the Committee on the Convention to End Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the UN Special Rapporteur on Health, and on Housing, which nowadays also refer to inclusive education, the right to community living and to be free from institutionalization, and support for exercising legal capacity. The UN CRPD is an enlightening and transformative part of the human rights framework.
Also regional human rights bodies have moved towards adoption of the CRPD standards, such as the Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons (2015), and the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In 2011 the Council of Europe Venice Commission restored the right to vote for persons with disabilities, by removing restrictions on legal capacity and shift the focus to assistance.
There is proliferation of good practices to end coercion, and increasing action to realize supported decision making, including law reforms that abolish substituted decision making, such as in Peru and Costa Rica.

Ana Pelaez, UN CEDAW Committee member and EDF Vice-President, spoke about Challenges and opportunities of mainstreaming disability in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
19,2% of women have a disability, which is 1 in 5. And from every 5 persons with a disability, 3 are women. In Europe there are 49 million women with disabilities. They are often not seen as women with disabilities, despite their specific needs and vulnerability due to the intersection of gender-based discrimination and disability-based discrimination. It is important to recognize women with disabilities and increase awareness on the specific gender aspect and disability issues.
As long as States and other actors see no data or focus on women with disabilities, they may omit to include this on their policy agenda. All stakeholders and actors, including civil society, women organizations, gender institutes, individual experts can make a difference here. Thematic reports, studies and statistics are essential to develop policy responses, indicators, reviews and recommendations. Some key issues for women with disability in the EU are gender-based violence, discrimination, forced sterilization and forced abortion, and intersectionality of gender and disability (e.g. vulnerability).

Katrin Uerpmann, Deputy Secretary of the Committee on Bioethics, Council of Europe, spoke about the” Draft Additional Protocol of the Oviedo Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of Persons with Mental Disorder with Regard to Involuntary Placement and Involuntary Treatment”
She stated that: The examination of Council of Europe “Recommendation Rec(400)10 concerning the protection of human rights and dignity of persons with mental disorder”, revealed that in certain Member States there were missing legal safeguards in particular to ensure that a person subject to involuntary measures can effectively exercise their rights. Also there was an increasing number of human rights violations found by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in this field. So the Council of Europe-Council of Ministers ordered the DH BIO Committee to take measures on the lack of safeguards on the rights of persons affected. DH BIO used amongst other the standards of the European Committee on the Prevention of Torture (CPT) as a basis for drawing up the Draft Additional Protocol, and claims to have looked at the UN CRPD as well as other legal instruments at the international level.
The Draft Additional Protocol aims to:
1.Promote the use of voluntary measures
2.Provide safeguards to ensure that involuntary measures are only used as a last resort
3.Ensure that if involuntary measures are used, then the person concerned receives appropriate support and procedural safeguards that enable them to effectively exercise their rights.
She spoke about “necessity and proportionality” of forced interventions, and stated that force should be the exception, and voluntary measures should be the norm..

The consultation process on the Draft Additional Protocol entailed several steps, such as in March 2014 there was a Hearing of INGO’s at the Council of Europe. Then from June to November 2015 there was a Public Consultation on the draft text as a working document. Later, from June to November 2018 there was a request for written opinions from Council of Europe bodies: the Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH), European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), Parliamentary Assembly (PACE), the Commissioner for Human Rights and the Conference of INGO’s. And in 2019, consultation of relevant professional organizations (psychiatrists, other medical practitioners, nurses, social workers).
She stated that the outcomes of the Public Consultation were divided, and about 50% of responses questioned the approach of DH BIO in light of the UN CRPD. There was in general support for elements such as the introduction of the right to choose a person of trust. Also, in general the safeguards and guarantees were considered to be not far-reaching enough (e.g. on time limits for review).
The PACE-recommendation 2091 (2016)1 (April 2016) questioned the compatibility of the working document with certain provisions of the CRPD as interpreted by the CRPD Committee, and called for withdrawal of the proposal to draw up an Additional Protocol.
The Reply by the Committee of Ministers stated that Involuntary measures continue to be provided for in the laws of Member States and are regularly applied. Cases are regularly brought and violation found by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The Additional Protocol can be an effective tool to ensure that in all circumstances, involuntary measures are embedded with the guarantees required by ECtHR, and to encourage the progressive transition to a more uniform application of voluntary measures in psychiatry by Member States in accordance with the spirit of the UN CRPD.
Written opinions from other Council of Europe bodies at the 14th DH BIO session (November 2018) state: The objective of the work remains relevant. The draft is to be carefully reviewed, having particular regard to strengthening the aspect of alternative and preventive measures, and further developing the collaboration with all relevant stakeholders.
The Council of Europe Disability Strategy 2017-2023 states “to achieve equality, dignity and equal opportunities for persons with disabilities through ensuring independence and freedom of choice”. There is agreement on the proposal of a Study on good practices in mental health care, and how to promote voluntary measures, the scope is to be framed in cooperation with relevant stakeholders.

The final speaker was Philippe Lortie, First Secretary of HCCH (Hague Conference Conference de La Haye), who spoke about The Hague Convention on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults and the interplay with the UNCRPD. In a globalizing world, this cross-border support initiative is important, to avoid legal conflict, by providing jurisdiction rules. Yet there is still a lot of confusion about the language and terminology used. He stated “what we mean by guardianship in the HCCH is actually transformed to some extent into modern forms, and it is actually supported decision making”. It would require a closer look to determine what is the exact case.

I wasn’t overly focused on this presentation, because I was preparing the questions on the Draft Additional Protocol, which I wanted to raise in the debate that followed.

In the debate, I spoke on behalf of ENUSP and asked questions to Katrin Uerpmann of Council of Europe DH BIO about the Draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention (on involuntary treatment and placement). I asked:
1. Whose wellbeing is the topic? We all know coercion is a violation and it cannot be called care.
2. When mentioning "risk for harm to self or others", it is actually about preventive detention based on disability. Would you agree that preventive detention is a human rights violation by definition?
3. Coercion is said to be a "last resort when alternatives are not available", but very often the alternatives exist only in theory and are not available at all, leading to widespread coercion. If no resources are added then how will this change?
4. About safeguards: Access to justice is actually disabled by allowing coercion by law, because then there is no breach of the law to argue and challenge in courts since it is considered to be "legal" (illustrated with my testimony: 24 years of complaints at all levels and not even any investigation in the Netherlands. You may imagine what the situation is like in the rest of Europe…).
5. The argument "it still happens so it must be regulated" doesn't make sense; e.g. rape also still happens but nonetheless it is prohibited.
6. Real care and support are possible and the UN CRPD gives us these rights. We want no compromise. Withdraw the Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention!
#WithdrawOviedo
I got applause from the audience for this intervention.

Katrin Uerpmann answered: The Draft Additional Protocol to Oviedo Convention is not "clearly against the UN CRPD", some provisions are in line. She agreed that indeed there is controversy with CRPD art 14 liberty in which the CRPD Committee prohibits any disability-based detention. Yet the UN HRC Committee issued a General Comment on HRC art 9 liberty which holds a different position, and which is more like the Council of Europe. She stated that the disagreement within the UN bodies needs to be settled.
On 6 June DH BIO will have the next meeting about Oviedo. The process can be stopped if the Council of Ministers decides so. So everyone can help by making Ministers aware that the Draft Additional Protocol to Oviedo Convention needs to be withdrawn.

Also some other participants asked questions to Katrin Uerpmann on the Draft Additional Protocol, such as whether there are any ambitions to consult with organizations of persons with disabilities, especially those affected by the Draft Additional Protocol (e.g. persons with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities, persons with autism, persons with dementia etc.). Katrin Uerpmann answered that indeed 3 umbrella organizations are invited, which are: European Disability Forum (EDF), the European Association of Service Providers of Persons with Disabilities (EASPD) and Rehabilitation International (RI).
Also, the audience was shocked to still hear the word “mental disorder” still being used at this high level in 2019. Katrin Uerpmann stated that the terminology was still being revised, yet unforeseen consequences had to be avoided, and there was no agreement on alternative terminology for “persons with mental disorder” yet.

After this debate, at 16.30 it was time for the Closing Remarks.

Emmanuelle Grange, Head of Unit Disability and Inclusion of DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion of the European Commission summarized the impression of the day. She looked back on the session on Political Participation, and reminded us that this is a topic that extends well beyond voting day.
She reflected on the session on Claiming Rights, and stressed that it is important to know where to go when your rights are breached in the EU. It all starts with knowing there ARE rights in the first place.
She also looked back at the afternoon session, which covered sensitive topics like the Draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention. It is a hot topic, and the debate is not over yet. The good news is that there IS a debate on these issues.
The CRPD is alive and kicking and we have to keep on debating and arguing for full implementation of the UN CRPD.

Rodolfo Cattani, EDF Executive Committee member, made the final closing remarks, and stated that persons with disabilities are part of the general perspective. If you give up on the human rights of persons with disabilities, you give up on the general. Rodolfo Cattani confessed to be deeply moved by hearing the testimonies on the situation of marginalized groups, such as women with disabilities, and persons with psychosocial disabilities. The EU must move from words to deeds. Obstacles have to be removed. Innovation may also bring new unforeseen problems, such as for example the remote-employment contracts of big companies hiring individuals that acts as small business entrepreneurs, which is not disability-friendly. These developments affect the quality of overall work-conditions, and worker’s rights in general. Persons with disabilities are pushed into poverty again. The exclusion is also jeopardizing the face to face contact, and may result in separated work for persons with and without disabilities. The push for implementation of the UN CRPD is still important for everyone in the EU.

After the closing of the Work Forum, I didn’t have much time to stay around, and I just said goodbye to a few people and then I left to go to the train station, heading back home to Eindhoven in 3 hours smoothly.

I was proud of my intervention today at the European Commission Work Forum on UN CRPD implementation in EU. It has been a truly inspiring event.