EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 15.11.2010 
SEC(2010) 1323 final 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS  
 
European Disability Strategy 2010-2020:  
A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe 
  
{COM(2010) 636 final} 
{SEC(2010) 1324 final} 
 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 4 
1. Overview of the situation............................................................................................. 4 1.1. Definition of disability ................................................................................................. 4  
1.2. Prevalence of disability................................................................................................ 4 1.3. National differences ..................................................................................................... 5  
1.4. Social and economic impact of disability .................................................................... 6 2. The 2004-2010 Disability Action Plan’s achievements............................................... 8 2.1. Historical and institutiona l context of disability polic ies at EU and Member State 
level.......................................................................................................................... .... 8 
2.2. Scope of the 2003-2010 Disability Action Plan......................................................... 10 2.3. Summary of DAP achievements ................................................................................ 11 2.4. Impact of EU initiatives ............................................................................................. 13 2.5. Key recommendations from mid-term evaluation of the DAP .................................. 19 3. Development of the new European Disability Strategy 2010-2020........................... 21 3.1. International and EU developments........................................................................... 21 3.2. Views of the European institutions ............................................................................ 33 3.3. Stakeholder consultation ............................................................................................ 35 3.4. Surveys and expert input............................................................................................ 35 4. European Disability Stra tegy 2010-2020: Objectives................................................ 37 
4.1. General objectives...................................................................................................... 37  
4.2. Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 37  
5. European Disability Strategy 2010-2020................................................................... 38 5.1. Justification for reinforced action .............................................................................. 38 5.2. Expected impact......................................................................................................... 39  
5.3. Monitoring and evaluation of the Eu ropean Disability Strategy 2010-2020 ............. 40 
 Annex 1 – Summary of the main outcomes of the public consultation ..................... 42  Annex 2 – Table with key instruments for implementation of the UNCRPD ........... 55  Annex 3 – Results of the EU Disability Action Plan 2008-2009............................... 59  Annex 4 – List of recent  reference documents........................................................... 74 
 
EN 3   EN  
List of main abbreviations 
EC: European Communities 
EU: European Union MS: Member States CoE: Council of Europe UN: United Nations ILO: International Labour Organisation 
OECD: Organisation for Economic Co -operation and Development  
TEC: Treaty Establishing the European Community TEU: Treaty on European Union TFEU: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union UNCRPD: United Nations Convention on the Right s of Persons with Disabilities or "UN 
Convention" 
DAP: Disability Action Plan DHLG: Disability High Level Group NGO: Non Governmental Organisation OMC: Open Method of Coordination SPSI: Social Protection and Social Inclusion 
ANED: Academic Network of European Disability Experts NSR: National Strategic Report EU-SILC: EU Statistics on Income, So cial Inclusion and Living Conditions 
EQLS: European Quality of Life Survey  LFS: Labour Force Survey 
 
EN 4   EN INTRODUCTION  
This background document relating to the Euro pean Disability St rategy 2010-2020 describes 
the present situation as regards disability in the EU, refers to evidence and supporting data, 
underpins the new strategy and summarises the c ontributions received in the public and the 
stakeholders’ consultation rounds . 
1. OVERVIEW OF THE SITUATION  
1.1. Definition of disability 
There is no EU-wide definition of disability. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities1 (UNCRPD or UN Convention) uses an open definition which says 
that (Article 1) ‘Persons with disabilities include t hose who have long-term physical, mental, 
intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder 
their full and effective pa rticipation in society on an equal basis with others.’ 
The Convention recognises that disability is an  ‘evolving concept’ and one that ‘results from 
the interaction between persons with impairment s and attitudinal and environmental barriers 
that hinders their full and effective participati on in society on an equal basis with others’.  
In practice, the definition of disability depe nds on its intended use: non-discrimination laws 
may be based on different criteria from those used to determine eligibility for state benefits. 
Moreover, definitions within the same policy area vary between Member States: the ‘Study on 
the situation of women with di sabilities in light of the UN CRPD’ provides a comparative 
analysis of differences in the emphasis th at European countries place on the medical and 
social aspects of disability wh en adopting non-discrimination laws2.  
1.2. Prevalence of disability 
The proportion of people with di sabilities or long-term health  problems across the Member 
States is estimated at 15.7  % of the working-age population.3 This is the evidence of the 2002 
ad hoc disability module of the Labour Force Survey (LFS AHM).4  
However, the LFS AHM only surveyed workin g-age (16-64) persons. The annual survey on 
Statistics on Income, Social Inclusion and Living Conditions (SILC) includes all persons aged 15 and above. In years 2006 thro ugh 2008, on average almost 8
 % of respondents across 
Europe stated that they were severely restricted  in ‘activities people usually do’ and 16.5  % 
of respondents stated th at they were restricted to some  extent, adding up to approximately 
                                                 
1 UN Website, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities . [Online]. 
2 Ecotec, ‘Study on the situation of women with disabilities in light of the UN Convention for the Rights 
of Persons with Disabilities’, A Final Report for the DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal 
Opportunities of the European Commission (VC/2007/317), December 2009 [Online]. 
3 The 2002 ad hoc disability module of the Labour Force Survey shows that 6.3  % of working-age people 
see themselves as severely restricted, 4.1  % somewhat restricted and further 5.2  % report some form of 
disability or a long-term disease. 
4 APPLICA & CESEP & ALPH AMETRICS, ‘Men and Women with Disabilities in the EU: Statistical 
Analysis of the LFS ad hoc module and the EU- SILC’ Final Report of study undertaken for the 
European Commission,, April 2007, Europa website  [Online], p. 10 & 28. 
 
EN 5   EN 24.5  % of the population. The data from SILC for persons of working ages 15-64 who say 
they are severely restricted  or restricted to some extent show a total percentage of 17.6  % of 
the population, which is in line with  the percentage of the LFS AHM. 
Among the respondents to another European-level  survey, the European Quality of Life 
Survey (EQLS), 7  % considered themselves to be severely disabled and 15  % disabled to some 
extent. 
While there is some variation between the figures  of these surveys, the incidence of severe 
restriction (respectively 6  %, 8  %, and 7  %) is in a narrow range.  
Another quantitative approach uses the Healt hy Life Years methodology, which looks at life 
expectancy without disability. Base d on data from Eurostat, the results5 are that in the EU25 
men were expected to live 80.7  % of their life without disabilit y, while women could expect to 
live 75.4  % of their lives free of disability.  
Further analysis shows that there is a clear correlation between age and disability . EU-SILC 
data from 2006 to 2008 show that on average over 30  % of respondents aged over 75 say they 
are restricted to some extent, and over 20  % describe themselves as se verely restricted. In the 
85-and-over age group, ‘severe limitation’ is mo re common than ‘some limitation’. The EU-
SILC data suggest that across all age groups , the prevalence of limitation was somewhat 
higher amongst women than men in 20076, with almost 9  % of women describing themselves 
as severely restricted and around 18  % as restricted to some extent compared to 7  % and over 
14 % respectively amongst men. It seems that men ar e more likely to be strongly limited than 
women, as exemplified by looking at the 55 -64 age group in the EU-SILC, where 10  % of 
men are classified as strongl y limited against just over 8  % of women7. 
In summary, these results indica te that at least one in six of working-age Europeans living  in 
households is affected by some form of disabi lity or long-standing heal th problem. If those 
living in institutions and people of retirement age are taken into account, the overall incidence 
is even higher. 
1.3. National differences 
An analysis of the EQLS data shows great diffe rences in the incidence of disability between 
countries, from around 20  % in the EU15 up to 32  % in the new Member States 8.  
Similarly, the LFS dataset showed that propo rtions varied markedly across EU Member 
States, ranging from 32  % in Finland and 27  % in the UK to just under 7  % in Italy9.  
                                                 
5 Europa - Public Health, 5/05/2010, ‘Data on the Healthy Life Years in the European Union’ . 
6 APPLICA & CESEP & ALPH AMETRICS, ‘Men and Women with Disabilities in the EU: Statistical 
Analysis of the LFS ad hoc module and the EU- SILC’, Final Report of study undertaken for the 
European Commission, Europa website , April 2007, p. 45. 
7 APPLICA & CESEP & ALPH AMETRICS, ‘Men and Women with Disabilities in the EU: Statistical 
Analysis of the LFS ad hoc module and the EU- SILC’, Final Report of study undertaken for the 
European Commission, Europa website , April 2007, p. 45. 
8 Fahey et al., ‘Quality of Life – First European Quality of Life Survey 2003’, 2004. Europa website – 
Eurofound , p. 56. 
9 APPLICA & CESEP & ALPH AMETRICS, ‘Men and Women with Disabilities in the EU: Statistical 
Analysis of the LFS ad hoc module and the EU- SILC’, Final Report of study undertaken for the 
European Commission, Europa website , April 2007, p. 20. 
 
EN 6   EN The EU-SILC showed variations, with for example 25  % of the population being hampered to 
some extent in Estonia and a corresponding figure of 6.5  % in Iceland. These differences in 
self-reported limitations may be due to environmental, social or economic factors, but could 
also reflect different soci etal and cultural attitudes to what constitutes limitation. 
While there may be some difference between countries10, there seems to be a general 
consensus that demographic trends (i.e. ageing  of population) lead to an increase in the 
number of years which a person will live with a disability and hence to an increase in the 
number of persons with disabilities. 
1.4. Social and economic impact of disability  
Available evidence suggests that persons w ith disabilities suffer explicit or concealed 
discrimination or are at risk of  discrimination. This leads to a number of social and economic 
disadvantages: 
• Incidence of poverty  for persons with disabilities is 70  % higher than average.11 The 
enlargements of 2004 and 2007 increased the number  of persons with disabilities by some 
9 million. Standards of living are substantially below the EU average in most of the ‘EU-
12’, which implies an increase of EU citizen s with disabilities living in precarious 
circumstances. 
• The work-related  limitations imposed on persons with di sabilities carry a significant risk 
of isolation and exclusion, the ‘b enefit trap’ appearing to be on e of the biggest obstacles to 
their labour market participation. 
• Employment  rates for persons with very severe and severe degrees of disability are 
respectively 19.5  % and 44.1  %  
• Fewer opportunities for persons with disa bilities to participate fully in education  carry a 
significant disadvantage for personal development.  Measures to facilitate full inclusion of 
persons with disabilities at all levels of  education would considerably improve their 
standing in the labour market and their social integration. 
A study by the European Foundation for the Impr ovement of Living and Working Conditions 
highlights ten risk factor s for social exclusion12: long-term dependence on  low or inadequate 
income; long-term unemployment; low quality  employment or absence of employment 
record; low level of education and illiteracy; growing up in a vulnerabl e family; disability; 
health; living in an area of multiple disadvantage; precarious housing conditions and homelessness; immigration, ethnic ity, racism and discrimination. 
People with disabilities suffer from most of these social exclusion risk factors
13. A particular 
strand of research has examined how the risk of  people acquiring a disability relates to some 
                                                 
10 Lafortune et al., ‘Trends in Severe Disability Among Elderly People: Assessing the Evidence in 12 
OECD Countries and the Future Implications’, 30.03.2007, OECD Health working papers, OECD 
website , p. 6. 
11 According to the 2004 EU-SILC data, over 17  % of those aged 16-64 who were strongly limited in what 
they could do had income below the risk of poverty line compared to just over 10  % of those not limited 
at all. 
12 Grammenos, S., ‘Illness, Disability and Social Inclusion’, 2003, Europa website – Eurofound , p. 31. 
13 Grammenos, S., ‘Illness, Disability and Social Inclusion’, 2003, Europa website – Eurofound , p. 31. 
 
EN 7   EN of these factors. For instance, European-level  analysis of socio-economic characteristics of 
people with illness and disability has shown that poorly educated people, poor, unskilled 
workers and the unemployed constitute hi gh-risk groups for acquiring a disability14.  
                                                 
14 Grammenos, S., ‘Illness, Disability and Social Inclusion’, 2003, Europa website – Eurofound , p. 125. 
 
EN 8   EN 2. THE 2004-2010  DISABILITY ACTION PLAN’S ACHIEVEMENTS  
2.1. Historical and institutional context of disability policies at EU and Member 
State level 
Since 1983, the Commission has supported the deve lopment of a European disability policy 
through a succession of action programmes15, initially aimed at prom oting networking among 
rehabilitation and education professionals. Th e third disability action programme (HELIOS II) 
marked an important shift in the Commission’ s approach, its aim being ‘to promote equal 
opportunities for and the integra tion of disabled people’. The equal opportunities approach 
was clearly set out in  a 1996 Communication16.  
With the insertion of Article 13 into the EC Tr eaty by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 (now 
Article 19 TFEU), appropriate steps could be ta ken to combat discrimination based on sex, 
racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disa bility, age or sexual orientation. This led in 2000 
to the adoption of the Framew ork Equal Treatment Directive (Council Direc tive 2000/78/EC), 
which requires Member States to take measures  to prohibit various forms of discrimination on 
grounds of disability (as well as religion, belief, age and sexua l orientation) in employment 
and occupation. Furthermore, the rights of persons  with disabilities ha ve been addressed in 
recent years by EU legislation in several sectors,  such as transport, public procurement, ICT, 
and structural funds17.  
The current EU Disability Action Plan (DAP) was formulated for the period 2003-201018 in 
two-year phases with the following po licy priorities: in 2008-2009 it focused on 
accessibility,19 in 2006-2007 on active inclusion20 and in 2004-2005 on employment21. 
Although disability issues  require action at all levels of governance, the DAP focused on the 
measures taken by the Commission at EU level, aiming to coordinate the activities of the 
various Commission services. The action plan is based on three pillars: mainstreaming, 
accessibility and legislation against discrimination. 
                                                 
15 Community Social Action Programme on the Social Integration of Handicapped People, 1983-88, 
(1981); HELIOS I (Second) Community Social Action Programme for Disabled People (1988) OJ 
L104/38; HELIOS II (Third) Community Action Programme to Assist Disabled People (1993) OJ L56/30. 
16 Communication of the Commission on Equality of Oppo rtunity for People with Disabilities - COM(96) 
406, 30.07.1996. 
17 See the Disability Action Plan 2008- 2009, achievements at EU level. 
18 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, ‘Equal Opportunities for people with disabilities: A European Action Plan ’ - COM(2003) 650, 30.10.2003 [online]. 
19 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, ‘Situation of disabled people in the European Union: The European Action Plan 2008-2009’ - COM(2007) 738, 26.11.2007 [Online]. 
20 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, ‘Situation of disabled people in the 
enlarged European Union: The European Action Plan 2006-2007’ - COM(2005) 604, 28.11.2005, 
[Online]. 
21 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, ‘Equal Opportunities for people 
with disabilities: A European Action Plan ’ - COM(2003) 650, 30.10.2003 [Online]. 
 
EN 9   EN 2.1.1.  Member State activities 
Member States have implemented a number of measures to address the problems associated 
with disability. These include examples of main streaming as well as targeted strategies or 
policies, such as restructuring of benefit systems.  
Although some Member States have been activ ely integrating disab ility into relevant 
policies22, research done by the Academic Network of European Disabi lity Experts (ANED) 
on National Strategy Reports for Social Protec tion and Social Inclus ion (SPSI NSRs) has 
shown that disability is mainst reamed in markedly different wa ys and that significant work is 
still required to achieve effective and strategi c mainstreaming of disability issues in national 
policy development23.  
In some relevant areas, such as flexicurity, research has found little explicit reference to 
disability (where this is present it is mainly for the carers rather than people with disabilities)
24. Moreover, people with disabilities are in some countries absent from 
discussions on social inequa lity, exclusion and poverty25.  
ANED experts have also highlighted how e ducation has either been underplayed or 
disregarded in NSRs on the s ubject of transposing European  common objectives on social 
protection and social inclusion26. On the other hand, in the same reports 27, increasing 
employment participation for disadvantaged gro ups is a priority commo n to all countries. 
As far as targeted policies and strategies at Member State level are concerned, the ANED 
analysis reveals a wide diversity of employ ment activation and facilitation policies, 
encompassing accessibility modifications in th e workplace, personal assistance at work, 
supported employment, sheltere d employment, social firms,  occupational training and 
rehabilitation, and se lf-employment schemes28. Moreover, most Member  States have taken 
initiatives to improve the accessibility of public buildings and to adopt rules friendly to people with disabilities regard ing new constructions.  
                                                
 
22 See DAP 2008-2009, Annex 5: Member State developments contributing to the implementation of the 
EU Disability Action Plan. 
23 Priestley, M., ‘Synthesis report on disability main streaming in the 2008-2010 National Strategy Reports 
for Social Protection and Social Inclusion (NSRs)’, Oct. 2008, Academic Network of European 
Disability Experts  [Online], p. 9. 
24 Priestley, M., ‘Synthesis report on disability main streaming in the 2008-2010 National Strategy Reports 
for Social Protection and Social Inclusion (NSRs)’, Oct. 2008, Academic Network of European 
Disability Experts  [Online], p. 15. 
25 Priestley, M., ‘Synthesis report on disability main streaming in the 2008-2010 National Strategy Reports 
for Social Protection and Social Inclusion (NSRs)’, Oct. 2008, Academic Network of European 
Disability Experts  [Online], p. 16. 
26 Priestley, M., ‘Synthesis report on disability main streaming in the 2008-2010 National Strategy Reports 
for Social Protection and Social Inclusion (NSRs)’, Oct. 2008, Academic Network of European 
Disability Experts  [Online], p. 20. 
27 Priestley, M., ‘Synthesis report on disability main streaming in the 2008-2010 National Strategy Reports 
for Social Protection and Social Inclusion (NSRs)’, Oct. 2008, Academic Network of European 
Disability Experts  [Online], p. 13. 
28 Priestley, M., ‘Synthesis report on disability main streaming in the 2008-2010 National Strategy Reports 
for Social Protection and Social Inclusion (NSRs)’, Oct. 2008, Academic Network of European 
Disability Experts  [Online], p. 13. 
 
EN 10   EN 2.1.1.1.  Disability High Level Group Reports on implementation of the UN Convention  
Since the start of the Disability Acti on Plan 2003-2010, a Disability High Level Group 
(DHLG) composed of experts in disability policies from Member States’ governments and 
civil society organisati ons has supported the European Comm ission in its implementation. In 
2007 the German Presidency requested th e DHLG to identify common challenges and 
solutions and to report back to the ministeria l disability conferences  of subsequent EU 
presidencies on progress made in respect of the UN Convention. Since 2008, the DHLG has 
prepared an annual progress report indicating the state of  play in relation to implementation of 
the UN Convention and identifying potential ar eas for cooperation at European level in 
implementing the Convention. 
The first report (2008)29 focused on issues related to the state of play of signatures and 
ratifications, to governance mechanisms develope d at national level, to  translation of the 
Convention, to screening of relevant disabili ty legislation, to training, awareness-raising 
activities and information on the Convention. It also identified a number of areas for which 
collaboration at EU level could be useful, fo r example through exchanges of information and 
good practice.  
The second report (2009)30 showed some of the achievements  and challenges in areas where 
Member States have seen added value in c ooperation: accessibility, le gal capacity, access to 
justice, living independentl y, voting rights and monitoring m echanisms and empowerment.  
The third report (2010)31 focuses on governance aspects as  covered by Article 33 of the UN 
Convention (formal governance mechanism, partic ipation of civil society and collection of 
statistics on disability). Furthe rmore, it provides information on national strategi es and actions 
developed in order to effectivel y put into practice the UN Convention and it draws attention to 
areas for EU-level cooperation. 
2.2. Scope of the 2003-2010 Disability Action Plan 
The 2003-2010 EU strategy on disability (Disabil ity Action Plan, DAP) was developed in 
two-year phases. The specific objectives of th ese phases are shown in the table below.  
Table 2: Overview of the DAP priorities  
2004-2005 2006-2007 2008-2009 
• access to, and 
remaining in, 
employment ; 
• lifelong learning  in 
support of • encouraging activity ; 
• promoting access to 
quality support and 
care services ;  • fostering accessibility  of the 
labour market; 
• boosting accessibility  of goods, 
services and infrastructures; 
                                                 
29 European Commission, ‘First Disability High le vel Group Report On Implementation of the UN 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’, 2008, Europa , [Online]. 
30 European Commission, ‘Second Disability High level Group Report On Implementation of the UN 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’, June 2009, Europa , [Online]. 
31 European Commission, ‘Draft Third Disability High level Group Report On Implementation of the UN 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’, March 2010, Europa , [Online]. 
 
EN 11   EN employability, 
adaptability, personal development and active citizenship of people with disabilities; and 
• using the potential of 
new technologies  in 
empowering people with disabilities • fostering accessibility  of 
goods and services; and 
• increasing the EU’s 
analytical capacity  • consolidating the Commission’s 
analytical capacity to support 
accessibility ; 
• increasing the EU’s analytical 
capacity ; 
• facilitating implementation of 
the UN Convention ; and 
• complementing the 
Community legislative 
framework  of protection 
against discrimination 
2.3. Summary of DAP achievements  
The DAP in its successive phases contained actio ns in a wide range of areas leading to 
improvements and some key results.  
The Mid-term Evaluation of the DAP notes good progress towards ‘the full and effective 
implementation’ of the Employment Equality Directive 2000/78/EC32. The Directive prohibits 
discrimination in employment on a number of grounds, including disability. In Article 5 it 
establishes a duty for employers to provide reasonable accommodation  for individuals with 
a disability. The Directive also allows for positive action  in Article 7(1), which states that the 
‘principle of equal treatment shall not prev ent any Member States from maintaining or 
adopting specific measures to preven t or compensate for disadvantages’33. The Directive does 
not explicitly define disabil ity, but court cases have brought some clarity to this issue34. To 
complement the Employment Equality Di rective, a proposal for a Directive on non-
discrimination beyond the workplace ha s been adopted by the Commission.35 
Action in the area of accessibility has led to the adoption of  important legislation.   
Table 3: Overview of European accessibility legislation  
Area Document 
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the Europ ean Parliament and of the Council of 
5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disa bled persons and persons with reduced 
mobility when travelling by air  Transport 
Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the Europ ean Parliament and of the Council of 
23 October 2007 on rail passengers ’ rights and obligations  
                                                 
32 See Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (2 009), ‘Mid-term Evaluation of the European Action 
Plan 2003-2010 on Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities’, p. 7. 
33 Ibid, p36. 
34 See Waddington, Lisa and Lawson, Anna (2009), ‘Disability and non-discrimination law in the 
European Union – an analysis of disability discrimination law within and beyond the employment 
field’, p. 15. 
35  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Le xUriServ.do?uri=CELEX :52008PC0426:EN:HTML 
 
EN 12   EN Regulation of the European Parliament a nd of the Council con cerning rights of 
passengers (including PRM) when tr avelling by sea and inland waterways 
(adopted on 11 October 2010, pending publication). 
Commission Decision 2008/164/EC of  21 December 2007 concerning the 
technical specification of interoperabili ty relating to pers ons with reduced 
mobility in the trans-European conve ntional and high-speed rail system  
Directive 2001/85/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 
November 2001 relating to special provision s for vehicles used for the carriage 
of passengers comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver’s seat, 
amending Directives 70/156/EEC and 97/27/EC  
Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Pa rliament and of the Council of 9 March 
1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity 
Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Pa rliament and of the Council of 7 March 
2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications 
networks and services (Framework Directive) 
Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Pa rliament and of the Council of 7 March 
2002 on universal service and users’ right s relating to electronic communications 
networks and services (Uni versal Service Directive) ICT 
Directive 2007/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 
December 2007 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in 
Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities 
 
An important development was the inclusion of Article 16 in the General Regulation (No 
1083/2006) on the Structural Funds, which specif ies that, in implementing the Funds, steps 
need to be taken to prevent any discrimination on  the basis of disability and that accessibility 
is to be one of the criteria to be ta ken into account during the implementation36.  
A good contribution to progress on accessibility is made by the EC Standardisation Mandates 
376 (on e-accessibility and public procurement in  the area of ICT goods and services and 
public procurement) and 420 (on accessibility to the public built environment)37.  
The mid-term evaluation notes other achieveme nts, including disability issues now being 
more prominent in the Social Protec tion and Social Inclusion (SPSI) OMC38, as well as a 
                                                 
36  See European Commission (2009), ‘Second High Level Group Report on Implementation of the UN 
Convention on the Rights of Peop le with Disabilities’, p. 215. 
37  See Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (2009), ‘Mid-term Evaluati on of the European Action 
Plan 2003-2010 on Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities’, p. 8. 
38  See Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (2009), ‘Mid-term Evaluati on of the European Action 
Plan 2003-2010 on Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities’ p. 9. 
 
EN 13   EN revision of the General Block Exemption Regula tion to promote employment of people with 
disabilities39. 
Nevertheless, the mid-term evaluation also id entified some weaknesses, such as lack of 
indicators and insufficient involvement of th e Member States. Also, the evaluation made 
recommendations for future work, for example to make the activities consistent with full 
implementation of the UNCRPD.  
These achievements in the area of disability s how that progress has been made, but only in 
some of the areas of the UNCRPD. A wider-rangi ng strategy is needed to comply fully with 
the substantive provisions of the UNCRPD.  
2.4. Impact of EU initiatives 
2.4.1.  Impact on the situation of persons with disabilities  
There is limited information regarding the di rect impact of EU policies on people with 
disabilities. The mid-term eval uation of the DAP investigates the achievements to date, but it 
says little about the im pact on that target group. 
The Employment Equality Directive is widely considered to be an important piece of 
European legislation for people with disabilities . However, the evaluators found that there is 
little evidence of progress in terms of employme nt rates of people with  disabilities since the 
adoption of the DAP40.  
The DAP mid-term evaluation report notes that  collaborative support through FP6 research 
projects contributed to the development of a number of innovative technologies which can in 
turn support independent living for people with  disabilities, especia lly people with cognitive 
disabilities. The actual impact of these technologies on people with disabilities could not 
however be assessed41. In general, the evaluators found that the DAP has generated a large 
number of outputs, including proj ects, activities, documents a nd events, but the results of 
these were difficult to quantify42 and few conclusions could be drawn about the actual impact 
on the situation of peopl e with disabilities.  
The DG EMPL 2009 activity report provides additio nal information about the current impact 
of EU actions on people with disa bilities. In terms of collaborat ive support, the report states 
that around 4  % of the beneficiaries of ESF fundi ng in 2008 were people with disabilities43. 
The evaluation of the European Year of People with Disabilities provided some insights on 
the impact of awareness-raising activities. It indicated that the activities have helped to 
mobilise and enable the participation of peopl e with disabilities and their organisations, 
although no other clear benefits for peopl e with disabilitie s were identified44. 
                                                 
39  Ibid. 
40  Ibid, p. 144. 
41  See Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (2009), ‘Mid-term Evaluati on of the European Action 
Plan 2003-2010 on Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities’ , p. 50. 
42  Ibid, p. 149. 
43  See European Commission (2009), ‘Employment, So cial Affairs, and Equal Opportunities Directorate 
General 2009 Annual Activity Report’ , p.. 9. 
44  See Ramboll Management (2004). ‘Evaluation of the European Year of People with Disabilities’, p. 31. 
 
EN 14   EN With regard to EU activities in the area of  accessibility, the MeAC (Measuring Progress of 
eAccessibility in Europe) report from 2007 provides a very good overview of the recent developments. The authors of the report note that there is little evidence of initiatives such as 
the eAccessibility Communication, inclusion of eAccessibility as one of  the themes in the 
i2010 policy framework, and the 2006 Riga minist erial declaration having a major impact on 
accessibility. Furthermore it highlighted an eAccessi bility ‘deficit’ and po inted out that people 
with disabilities still faced many barri ers to using ICT pr oducts and services
45. This is 
underscored by the Riga Dashboard report from  2007, which notes that progress towards 
achieving the Riga targets is much too slow46. This, in turn, implies that the situation of 
people with disabilities has not se en much improvement. As an example, the report notes that 
in 2007 only 5  % of public websites in Europe were  fully accessible, nowhere near the 100  % 
target set for 201047. 
An ANED report ‘The implementati on of EU social inclusion and social protection strategies 
in European countries with reference to equali ty for disabled people’ focuses on the impact on 
people with disabilities of European age nda-setting activities under the Open Method of 
Coordination (OMC) in the areas of social inclusion, pensions, and health and long-term care. 
The authors of the report note the introducti on of new legislation aiming at fighting 
discrimination and improving social inclusion. They remark on positive developments, such 
as evidence of policy measures supporting in dependent living, de-institutionalisation, and 
empowering people with disabilities.  
However, the report notes that the situation differs between countries48 and that the level of 
poverty among people with disabilities remains high. The authors conclude  that ‘the current 
policy measures have not been able to offer to people with disabilities a safety net that would 
bring them out of the poverty trap and enable them to lead dignified lives’49. 
Overall, the evidence of the impact of current and previous EU action on the situation of 
people with disabilities remains limited. It is however important to keep in mind that the 
impact of some measures can take a long time  to materialise. Nevertheless, some of the 
instruments have potential to  bring about more immediate changes: examples being the 
positive effect of ESF funding on employment and the OMC’s impact on adopting measures promoting independent living and deinstitutionalisation.  
2.4.2.  Economic impact 
The impact of European disability policy on industry  is felt in two main areas. As regards the 
impact of existing or proposed anti-discrimin ation legislation which covers people with 
disabilities, most information comes from empl oyer and industry organisations and it tends to 
focus on the ‘costs’ of anti-discrimination measur es. However, there is relatively little hard 
data available on the benefits of such meas ures. People with disabilities who have the 
opportunity to be (more) gainfu lly employed might for example make a bigger contribution to 
                                                
 
45  See Empirica and Work Research Centre (2007) , ‘Assessment of the Status of eAccessibility in 
Europe’, p. II. 
46  See European Commission (2007), ‘Measuring Progress in e-Inclusion – Riga Dashboard 2007’, p. 3. 
47  Ibid, p. 5. 
48  Ibid, p. 32. 
49  See Academic Network of European Disability Experts (ANED) (2009), ‘The implementation of EU 
social inclusion and social protection strategies in  European countries with reference to equality for 
people with disabilities’ , p. 33. 
 
EN 15   EN society. Further benefit can be obtained by measures  that lead to the cr eation of new or bigger 
markets for products and services. 
A Business Europe response to a European stak eholder consultation re garding discrimination 
cites a 2007 study by the Univers ity of Dortmund and the Initia tive for New Social Market 
Economy (INSM), which looks at the potential cost to German businesses of implementing the German non-discrimination laws. The study rev eals that the total annual cost to German 
companies of putting in place preventive measures  required by the transposition of EU anti-
discrimination legislation (such as new stra tegies or training) can amount to €1.73 billion
50, or 
0075  % of the 2008 GDP. The methodology of this  study was criticised by the German 
government’s non-discrimination office ( Antidiskriminierungsstelle ), whose estimate (based 
on the data of the INSM study) was €26 million, around 1.5  % of the INSM estimate51. 
Similarly, in a position paper responding to the proposal for a Directive on Implementing the 
Principle of Equal Treatment Between Persons I rrespective of Religion or Belief, Disability, 
Age or Sexual Orientation (COM(2008)426 final) , Business Europe argues that reasonable 
accommodation would result in significant costs for businesses. Similarly, it points to the 
potential cost of reversal of the burden of  proof with regard to accessible goods and 
services52. UEAPME, the European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized 
Enterprises, voiced similar concerns regarding th e burden of proof (Artic le 8), stating that it 
implies that all activities of the enterprise would need to be documented, which, in turn, 
implies high potential costs that can have a detr imental effect on the economic performance of 
small enterprises53.  
Although business stakeholders argue that the costs of tackling discrimination are high for 
businesses, other sources tell  a different story. A US st udy showed that ‘more than 80  % of 
reasonable accommodation adjustments cost less than US $500 but half of all those accommodations cost practically nothing’
54 In another study by the Department of Work and 
Pensions in the UK, 74  % of businesses reported that making adjustments to provide 
reasonable accommodation had been easy.55 Similarly, a Swiss study noted that the cost of 
making public and other buildings  accessible does not exceed 1  % of building costs56.  
A UK study commissioned by Government Office for Disability Issues on the costs and 
benefits of independent living poi nted out that people with disabi lities are likely to contribute 
more to public finances and to dr aw less benefits if they can live  in the community rather than 
in institutions. The study concluded that on a m acro-economic level, independent living is a 
                                                 
50  See Business Europe (2007), Response to social partner consultation ‘Discrimination, does it matter?’, 
p. 1. 
51  See for example Hawley, C. (2008), ‘Feared cost of Anti-Discrimination Law May Not Exist’, 
8/05/2008, Der Spiegel [Online]. 
52  See Business Europe (2008), ‘Business Europe Position Paper – Commission Proposal for a Directive 
on ‘Implementing the Principle of Equal Treatment Between Persons Irrespective of Religion or Belief, Disability, Age, or Sexual Orientation’, p. 5. 
53  Ibid, p. 4. 
54  Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), US Department of Labour, ‘Investing in People: Job 
Accommodation Situations and Solutions’, [Online] http://www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/misc/invest.htm. 
55  Simm, Claire et al (2007), ‘Organisations’ resp onses to the Disability Discrimination Act’, Research 
Report No 410 for Department for Work and Pensions, [Online]  
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2 007-2008/rrep410.pdf, p. 2 and passim. 
56  Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich : http://www.hindernisfrei-bauen.ch/kosten_d.php 
 
EN 16   EN cost-effective option.57 The study also pointed out that sending young disabled people to 
secluded residential schools cost s considerably more than faci litating their further education 
within their community.58 
A 2008 study by EPEC has produced various estimat es of the macro-economic impact of the 
lack of integration in society of persons with disabilities. It estimates that the lower labour-
force participation or lower qualification level of individuals with disabilities results in the loss of €40.3 billion in GDP  for the EU-25 yearly.
59 Discrimination in health services results 
in more days lost to sickness or in the pe rsons concerned leaving the workforce entirely, 
causing an annual GDP loss of €812 million in the EU-25 countries.60 These figures imply 
that the total elimination of discrimination in occupation and training as well as healthcare 
would create over €41 billion in value for so ciety each year. The EPEC study also estimates 
that increasing the educational st andard of people with disabiliti es Europe-wide to the level of 
Germany (the best performer) could genera te €28 billion annually in higher wages. 
While these estimates are of a macro-economic  nature, many businesses see diversity of 
workforce also as a benefit at micro level.  A European Commission project used the 2008 
European Business Test Panel (EBTP) to assess the benefits of diversity. Around 56  % of 
EBTP companies with an equali ty and diversity (E & D) ag enda suggested that it has a 
positive impact on their business and some 63  % of them identified a link between diversity 
and innovation.61  
Non-discrimination also creates  new or better market oppor tunities. A study by the Royal 
National Institute of the Blind (UK) established that a £35  000 investment by the supermarket 
chain Tesco in making their website accessibl e brought in additional revenue of over £13 
million a year62. In a different sector and countr y, a study commissioned by the German 
Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology estimates that more accessible facilities 
would result in an increase of travel by pe rsons with disabilities, yielding between €620 
million and €1  930 million in additional turnover for the German tourism industry. This would 
mean additional income of between €365 million and €1  150 million, as well as 16  000 to 
50 000 new full-time jobs. 45.6  % of persons surveyed for the study would be prepared to 
spend, on average, an extra €12.50 pe r day for adequate facilities.63 
By combining data from several sources an estimate can be made  of the annual size of the EU 
market for assistive devices. Assistive techno logy products are product s designed to assist 
people who, because of specific impairments or those general impairments that often 
                                                 
57  Hurstfield, Jennifer et. al. (2007): ‘The costs and benefits of Independent Living’, report for HM 
Government Office for Disability Issues, p. 100. 
58  See Hurstfield, Jennifer et. al. (2007): ‘The costs and benefits of Independent Living’, report for HM 
Government Office for Disability Issues, p. 97. 
59  EPEC (2008), ‘Study on discrimination on grounds of religion and belief, age, disability and sexual 
orientation outside of employment’, p. 85. 
60  EPEC (2008), ‘Study on discrimination on grounds of religion and belief, age, disability and sexual 
orientation outside of employment’, p. 86. 
61  European Commission (2008), ‘Continuing the Diversity Journey: Business Practices, Perspectives and 
Benefits’, p. 32. 
62  Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), ‘Case Study of Accessibility Benefits : Tesco’, retrieved from 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/b case/tesco-case-study. 
63  See Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (2004), ‘Economic Impulses of Accessible 
Tourism for All – summary of Results’, retrieved from  
http://www.bmwi.de /English/Redaktion/Pdf/economic-im pulses-of-accessible-tourism-for-all-
526,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi,sp rache=en,rwb=tru e.pdf, p. 36. 
 
EN 17   EN accompany old age, would otherwise be unable to participate meaningfully  in society and the 
economy.  According to the ISO definition 99 99 (2007), "an assistive product is any product 
(including devices, equipment, instruments, te chnology and software) especially produced or 
generally available, for preventing, compen sating, monitoring, re lieving or neutralizing 
impairments, activity limitations and partic ipation restrictions". Assistive technology 
encompasses a broad range of devices, from “low-tech” products such  as eyeglasses and 
large-print books, to technologica lly sophisticated products such as voice synthesizers, Braille 
readers, and wireless monitoring devices. 
On the basis of US figures coming from Medi care, the annual value of the EU market for 
wheelchairs is estimated to be  around €2 billion. Considering th at wheelchairs represent about 
38 % of the home medical equipment market64, the total annual value of this market for 
assistive devices would then be in the order of €5 billion. If one considers also other assistive 
segments like the vision and readin g aids segment, the market fo r assistive devices in the EU 
would be worth over €30 billion65. Moreover, on the basis of da ta for the US market, this 
figure is expected to increase c onsiderably in the coming years66. By opening up this market, 
sizeable efficiency gains should be attainable. 
2.4.3.  Impact on technological development and innovation  
There is limited information on the impact that vari ous EU initiatives in the field of disability 
have on technological development and innovation. EU instruments could be expected to have 
an impact on the funding of disability-relate d research through the framework programme on 
technological development and innovation. The authors of the mid-term evaluation of the 
DAP do in fact state that the co llaborative support in the form  of research projects funded 
under the Framework Programmes had such an impact, in particular through demonstration 
effects in terms of development of innovative  solutions to support independent living for 
persons with cognitive disabilities67.  
A more indirect effect of European actions in th e area of disability is th e potential impact of a 
more unified and harmonised set of standards.  Standards which are simplified or harmonised 
across Europe, even if strict , can be beneficial to busin esses by reducing the cost of 
developing a product for multiple markets within  Europe. They can also encourage innovation 
since they effectively expand the potential market  that a product in development can reach at 
a given cost, making the product po tentially more profitable.  
2.4.4.  Impact on public authorities  
Public authorities are a key target of a wide ra nge of EU policies. The mid-term evaluation of 
the DAP provides a comprehensive overview of  the impact on public authorities, noting, 
among other things, that the DAP served as a useful reference point for public authorities 
across Europe.  
                                                 
64  ‘Wheeled mobility market’ , online at: 
http://www.wheelchairnet.org/wcn_wcu/Research/S takeholderDocs/PDFs/wpf_wheelchairsummary_do
c.pdf. 
65  Deloitte & Touche, Access to Assistive Te chnology  in the European  Union 2003.  
66  The U.S. market for assistive technology is expected to be worth $38.2 billion in 2008, up from $36.4 
billion in 2007. This should increase to $49.3 billion in 2013, a compound annual growth rate of 5.3%, 
http://www.bccresearch.com/report/HLC047B.html.  
67  Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (2009), ‘Mid-term Evaluation of the European Action Plan 
2003-2010 on Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities’ , p. 50. 
 
EN 18   EN In terms of practical benefits , the existence of a high-level European framework is reckoned 
to have contributed for example to the develo pment of national disability action plans (in 
France, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden and the UK). The evaluators also stress that the DAP 
encouraged disability mainstr eaming at national and regional levels. There is however also 
evidence suggesting that in some cases the DAP was overly complex and di d not relate to the 
context and priorities at Member State level68.  
With regard to the impact of different types of instruments, the Progress Annual Performance 
Monitoring Reports for 2008 and 2009 show that  evaluation and monitoring, data collection, 
and awareness-raising activities (including policy advice, resear ch and analysis, statistical 
indicators, tools and methods) all c ontributed to national policymaking69. Similarly, with 
regard to awareness-raising in the form of the European Year of People with Disabilities, it 
was found that the Year prompt ed national decision-makers to launch new initiatives, 
resulting in a number of legal a nd policy initiativ es across Europe70.  
Agenda-setting activities, such as OMC, also impact on public authorities. The ANED report 
‘The implementation of EU social inclusion a nd social protection strategies in European 
countries with reference to equality for disabl ed people’ shows that a number of measures 
were put in place as a result of EU actions. This involved in particular efforts to boost 
inclusive education, m odernising social policies by incr easingly focusing investment in 
education, as well as actions to promote de -institutionalisation an d provision of direct 
payment schemes. The report al so stresses the lack  of statistical information, which is 
necessary in order to better assess the impact71.  
Although the European initiatives are also likely to en tail costs for public authorities, they 
result from obligations stemming from the UNCRPD, and carrying them out at EU level 
could also bring some savings  by avoiding duplication of national efforts. For example 
activities such as data collection and reporting c ould constitute a financ ial and administrative 
burden for Member States, although this te nds to be unavoidable as the Monitoring 
Guidelines published by the UN Committee on the Ri ghts of Persons with Disabilities contain 
strong demands concerning the collection of statistics. 
Overall, there are some indications that the measures taken to date  are having a positive 
impact, although this evidence is very limited. It is possible that a greater impact will 
materialise over time, but there appears to be significant scope fo r improving the current 
situation. 
                                                 
68  See Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (2009), ‘Mid-term Evaluati on of the European Action 
Plan 2003-2010 on Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities’ , p. 11. 
69  European Commission, ‘Progress Annual Performance Monitoring Report from 2008’, Progress Annual 
Performance Monitoring Report from 2008, p. 37 ff. and European Commission, ‘Progress Annual 
Performance Monitoring Report from 2008’ Progress Annual Performance Monitoring Report from 
2009, p. 43 ff. 
70  Ramboll Management (2004).‘Evaluation of the Eur opean Year of People with Disabilities’, p. 36. 
71  Academic Network of European Disability Experts (ANED) (2009), ‘The implementation of EU social 
inclusion and social protection strategies in Europe an countries with reference to equality for people 
with disabilities’, p. 34. 
 
EN 19   EN 2.5. Key recommendations from mid-term evaluation of the DAP 
Two main conclusions that can be drawn from  the ‘Mid-term Evaluation of the European 
Disability Action Plan 2003-2010’72 are: 
• In a subset of areas where problems were id entified and actions were  included in the DAP, 
additional improvements are needed; 
• There is a need for a wide range of instrume nts, including in particular evaluation and 
monitoring and data collection. 
The study generally concludes that ‘(...) th e Disability Action Plan made a positive 
contribution to promoting equal opportunities fo r people with disabili ties in its first two 
implementation phases’73 by serving as a useful reference point for relevant actors. 
Nevertheless, the study notes the following:  
• the assessment of the situation of people w ith disabilities in the labour market does not 
reveal much progress in terms of increased em ployment rates and reduc ed inactivity rates; 
• limited progress has been made in the area of lifelong learning;  
• few disability mainstreaming activ ities had a national dimension.  
Even in areas where the authors of the evalua tion note that considerable progress has been 
made, challenges remain. On the subject of accessi bility to the built environment, they point 
out that ‘tackling accessibility barriers will  only be achievable over the long term, which will 
require ongoing commitment at EU and MS level’74. Similarly, with regard to Directive 
2000/78/EC on anti-discrimination, the authors of  the study note that ‘there remains some 
way to go before the transposition process can be said to have been completed satisfactorily’
75.  
With regard to the use of specific instrume nts, monitoring and evaluation activities are 
considered incomplete. There is thus scope ‘for improving the monitoring system’ and for 
putting in place ‘performance measurement indicat ors, context indicators and baselines’ (p. 
143). In fact, the evaluation report puts forwar d thirteen recommendations in the area of 
monitoring and evaluation, whic h include the following:  
• the Commission should monitor the full and effective implementation of recent EU 
legislation likely to have an impact on promoting equal opportunities for people with 
disabilities;  
• a study should be undertaken to assess the extent to which EU legislatio n with the potential 
to impact on people with disa bilities is being fully and e ffectively implemented; and  
                                                 
72  Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (2009), ‘Mid-term Evaluation of the European Action Plan 
2003-2010 on Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities’. 
73  Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (2009), ‘Mid-term Evaluation of the European Action Plan 
2003-2010 on Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities’, p. 155. 
74  Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (2009), ‘Mid-term Evaluation of the European Action Plan 
2003-2010 on Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities’, p. 60. 
75  Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (2009), ‘Mid-term Evaluation of the European Action Plan 
2003-2010 on Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities’, p. 126. 
 
EN 20   EN • some quantitative monitoring should be carried out by the Unit for the Integration of 
People with Disabilities so that statistical data on EU DAP activities are available to inform the work of the DHLG and the mid-te rm evaluation of Disability 2020 envisaged 
for 2015
76.  
Some of the recommendations focus more specifi cally on data collection, with the evaluation 
report suggesting that ‘there s hould continue to be a focus in the successor Action Plan on 
improving the comparability of disability data’ and that ‘there is a need to improve the 
availability of disability stat istics on a disaggregated basis’77. 
                                                 
76  Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (2009), ‘Mid-term Evaluation of the European Action Plan 
2003-2010 on Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities’ , p. 164. 
77  Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (2009), ‘Mid-term Evaluation of the European Action Plan 
2003-2010 on Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities’. 
 
EN 21   EN 3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW EUROPEAN DISABILITY STRATEGY 2010-2020 
3.1. International and EU developments 
3.1.1.  Council of Europe Action Plan 
The Council of Europe (CoE) has an action plan for the period 2006-2015, with a focus on 
promoting the rights and full participation of peopl e with disabilities in society and aiming to 
improve the quality of life of all people with di sabilities in Europe. All EU Member States are 
members of the CoE and are implementing this action plan. 
The plan is broken down into action lines. These often refer to specific areas also covered in 
the UNCRPD, along with cross-cutting aspects re levant to people with disabilities. The CoE 
Action Plan was developed befo re the adoption of the UNCRPD78 and it does not cover its 
full scope. The plan has been taken into accoun t in the preparation of the new strategy. 
3.1.2.  United Nations Convention on the Right s of Persons with Disabilities 
Since March 2007, all EU Member States are signa tories to the United Nations Convention on 
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRP D) and a majority of them have signed its 
Optional Protocol too. The rati fication process is under way. The European Community (now 
EU) has also signed the UNCRPD and the Council adopted the Decision for its conclusion in 
November 200979. Furthermore the Commission has made  a proposal for a Council decision 
to accede to the Convention’s Optional Protocol. 
In March 2008, when the Council asked the Commission to begin working on a European 
disability strategy to succeed the DAP,80 it invited the Commission to consider setting 
consistent and comparable national targets to reflect how national actions comply with the 
commitment made by the EU and the Member States to fully implement the UNCRPD.  
The UN Convention has therefore been taken as  a point of departure in structuring the 
problems that the new strategy should address, for two important  reasons. Firstly, both the EU 
and the Member States have undertaken oblig ations by signing the Convention. Secondly, the 
Convention provides a well-developed referenc e framework, which encompasses practically 
all relevant disability issues . The UN Convention is a ‘mixed agreement’: it covers some 
issues that fall fully within the competence of the Member States, others that fall fully within the Union's exclusive competence and still others  that fall within the competence shared by 
the Member States and the Union. In implem enting the Convention, the EU and its Member 
States are bound by a duty of loyal cooperati on with each other (Article 4(3) TEU). 
The section below gives an overview of the probl em analysis and maps the key gaps between 
the current situation and a scenario wher e the UNCRPD would be fully implemented, 
providing examples from available data and research, with a focus on Europe-wide data 
                                                
 
78  The UNCRPD was adopted in December 2006. 
79  Council Decision of 26 November 2009 concerning the conclusion, by the European Community, of the 
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, (2010/48/EC).  
80  Resolution of the Council of the European Union and the representatives of the Governments of the 
Member States, meeting within the Council of 17 March 2008 on the situation of persons with 
disabilities in the European Union, (2008/C 75/01). 
 
EN 22   EN sources. The section is organise d to reflect the Articles of the UNCRPD, grouped into four 
main categories: horizontal issues, civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural 
rights, and governance issues.  
3.1.2.1.  Horizontal issues 
• Equality and non-discrimination (Article 5)  
Research has shown that people with disabilities  experience various kinds  of discrimination in 
all areas of life81: less favourable treatment because of hostility, fear, impatience, ignorance or 
even misplaced kindness; inaccessibility of phys ical environments, stru ctures and features; 
inaccessibility of information; in flexibility as to modes of co mmunication; and lack of staff 
assistance.  
The 2009 special Eurobarometer focusing on disc rimination in the European Union showed 
that 53  % of respondents across the EU believed that  discrimination on grounds of disability 
was widespread, while 41  % of respondents believed it was rare82. Around 80  % of 
respondents to the public consultation for the Disability  Strategy 2010-2020 agreed or 
strongly agreed that people w ith disabilities face discriminati on in their everyday activities. 
The forms of anti-discrimination legislation vary across the Member States: some (e.g. 
Hungary and Germany) have created separate laws on disability and employment or new anti-
discrimination acts specifically addressing persons with disabili ties, while others have taken 
the approach of incorporating anti-discr imination clauses into all legislation83. 
A 2009 analysis of disability and non-di scrimination law in the European Union84 concluded 
that good progress has been made in implem enting Directive 2000/78/ EC on equality in 
employment, while also noting that the most challenging disability-related problems in 
transposing the Directive into national law were: establishing who is protected from discrimination on grounds of disability a nd clarifying the concept of reasonable 
accommodation.  
• Particularly vulnerable gr oups (Articles 6 and 7)  
It is, for example, evident that  women with disabilities are under-represented in democratic 
processes and decision-m aking more generally
85. In addition, women with mental or 
                                                 
81  European Commission (2008), ‘I mpact assessment - Proposal for a Co uncil Directive on implementing 
the principle of equal treatment between persons ir respective of religion or belief, disability, age or 
sexual orientation’, 2/07/2008, Commission Staff Working Document SEC(2008) 2180 & COM(2008) 
2180, [Online], And: Waddington, L & Lawson, A. (2009), ‘Disability and non-discrimination law in 
the European Union – An analysis of disability discrimination law within and beyond the employment field’, July 2009, European Network of Legal Experts in the Non-Discrimination Field, [Online]. 
82  European Commission (2009), ‘Discrimination in the EU in 2009’ Special Eurobarometer Report 317, 
Nov 2009, [Online] p. 78. 
83  See ‘Study on the situation of women with disab ilities in light of the UN Convention for the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities’ (2009). 
84  Waddington, L & Lawson, A. (2009), ‘Disability a nd non-discrimination law in the European Union – 
An analysis of disability discrimination law within and beyond the employment field’, July 2009, 
European Network of Legal Experts in the Non-Discrimination Field, http://www.non-
discrimination.net/content/media/Disability%20non-dis crimination%20law.pdf [Accessed: 28/07/2010]. 
85  See ‘Study on the situation of women with disab ilities in light of the UN Convention for the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities’, p. 133. 
 
EN 23   EN psychological disability are at gr eater risk of being abused than  are men with disabilities or 
women without disabilities. Social protectio n systems and healthca re services do not 
recognise gender as a dimension relevant to pers ons with disabilities. Women with disabilities 
are particularly under-represented in recreationa l activities, culture and sport – in terms of 
participation, leadership, ma nagement and media coverage86. Similarly, children with 
disabilities face significant barrie rs to e.g. participation in re creational activities, culture and 
sport, and remain poorly serv ed by provision of education87.  
• Awareness-raising (Article 8)  
Awareness-raising is crucial in fi ghting discrimination, as the latter  is often based on hostility, 
fear, impatience, ignorance or even misplaced ki ndness, all of which are rooted in insufficient 
familiarity with the issue. Disability is the ty pe of discrimination most widely recognised, yet 
awareness of the existence of anti-discriminati on law in the EU is quite low – in the 2006 
discrimination Eurobarometer (in 2009, the question was not as ked), around half of the 
European public knew e.g. that discriminatio n on the basis of disability in hiring new 
employees is prohibited by law. Awareness is lower in new Member States than in the EU15
88.  
• Accessibility (Article 9)  
The UNCRPD refers to accessibility in detail , and highlights the res ponsibility of States 
Parties to take ‘appropriate measures to ensu re to persons with disa bilities access, on equal 
basis with others, to the physical environm ent, to transportati on, to information and 
communications, including information and comm unications technologies and systems and to 
other facilities and services’.  
Additionally, 91  % of respondents in the 2006 Eurobaromete r survey agreed that more money 
should be spent on eliminating physical ba rriers faced by people with disabilities89. 
Premises that are open to the pub lic, such as shops, restaurant s, cinemas, post offices, schools 
and courts of law, are often inacce ssible to people with disabilities90. Physical access to 
buildings  has been highlighted as a particular ch allenge for higher edu cation institutions in 
countries like Estonia, Hunga ry, Italy, Portugal and Spain91.  
Access to transportation  is a vital factor for the inclus ion of persons with disabilities. 
Mobility is a particularly important issue for those that are considerably restricted92. In some 
countries transport support scheme are financed by the State, but in others families themselves 
                                                 
86  ‘Study on the situation of women with disabilitie s in light of the UN Convention for the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities’, p. 34-135. 
87  ‘Study on the situation of women with disabilitie s in light of the UN Convention for the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities’, p. 135. 
88  European Commission (2007), ‘Discrimination in the European Union’ Special Eurobarometer 263, Jan 
2007, [Online], p. 31. 
89  European Commission (2007), ‘Discrimination in the European Union’ Special Eurobarometer 263, Jan 
2007, [Online], p. 13. 
90  Grammenos, S., 'Illne ss, Disability and Social Inclusion', 2005, Eurofound , p. 36. 
91  European Agency for Development in Special N eeds Education (2006), ‘Special Needs Education in 
Europe – Provision in post-primary education’ Volume 2, [Online]], p. 56. 
92  See ‘Men and women with disabilities in the EU: st atistical analysis of the LFS ad hoc module and the 
EU-SILC’, p. 110. 
 
EN 24   EN have to pay for transportation, which in itse lf may pose another obstacle to enjoying e.g. 
leisure activities and health care93. 
Lack of accessibility to sources of information  is recognised as a particular challenge, for 
example in Hungary, Norway, Romania, Sweden and Switzerland94. In the Czech Republic, 
Estonia, Hungary, the Netherlands and Portugal a particular need for specialist educational 
support (e.g. technical aids, counselli ng, guidance) has been highlighted.  
Accessibility barriers in using services  like insurance, rented accommodation, banking and 
financial services, as well as shops and other goods and services pose significant problems for 
people with disabilities  (e.g. by refusal to provide servi ce, providing lower standard of 
service, providing services on worse terms95). With regard to assis tive technologies, there is 
evidence of insufficient supply of public goods,  weak competition and lack of information 
about new developments96. 
Although almost all websites  are navigable to some extent, on average in the EU27 only 5  % 
of public websites comply fully with the web accessibility standards and guidelines. The 
percentage of subtitled audio-visu al programming varies widely (2.5  % to 95  %) and there is 
considerable fragmentation across product ranges when it comes to built-in accessibility in 
PCs and software97. 
• Situations of risk and humanita rian emergencies (Article 11)  
As an example, research on the response to the 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia showed that 
people with disabilities were part icularly badly affected. Many of them lost all mobility aids 
and were under-represented in lobbying for reconstruction funding98.  
3.1.2.2.  Civil and political rights 
• Rights with regard to legal and just ice system (Articles 12, 13 and 14)  
There is not much quantitative Europe-wid e information about rights such as equal 
recognition before the law (Article 12) and access to justice (Article 13), but there are clear 
indications that this is  a key problem area.  
There is evidence that judicial buildings are s till barely accessible a nd that justice personnel 
are not properly trained to pr ovide an appropriate service an d to cover the needs of people 
with disabilities (this is particularly  true for women with disabilities)99. Round-table panellists 
at the Conference of State Parties to the UNCRPD in September 2009 underlined the 
                                                 
93  ‘Men and women with disabilities in the EU: statisti cal analysis of the LFS ad hoc module and the EU-
SILC, p. 36. 
94  European Agency for Development in Special N eeds Education (2006), ‘Special Needs Education in 
Europe – Provision in post-primary education’ Volume 2, [Online], p. 56. 
95  Fahey et al., ‘Quality of Life – First European Quality of Life Survey 2003’, 2004. Europa website – 
Eurofound , p. 76. 
96  See for example http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/L exUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52007DC0332:EN:NOT , p. 7. 
97  European Commission (2007), Impact Assessment for the ‘European i2010 initiative on e-Inclusion’ - 
SEC(2007) 1469, p. 7. 
98  International Disability and Development Consor tium (2005), ‘Disability in Conflict and Emergency 
Situations: Focus on Tsunami-aff ected Areas’ [Online], p. 7-9. 
99  See ‘Study on the situation of women with disab ilities in light of the UN Convention for the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities’, p. 113. 
 
EN 25   EN importance of equal legal rights and access to jus tice, with one panellis t noting that ‘To date 
(…) no country in the world had completely r ecognised the right to legal capacity of all 
people with disabilities or fully eliminated forced mental health treatment (…). Some 
countries had granted limited decision-making ri ghts to the disabled, bu t they remained under 
the guardianship of others, often against their will’100. These problem areas have also been 
identified as priorities by the High Level Gr oup on Disability. The area of legal rights and 
access to justice is therefore of ke y importance in the new strategy.  
• Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and 
exploitation, violence and abuse (Articles 15 and 16)  
Research shows examples of inappropriate treatment and pa tient abuse in residential 
institutions for mentally disa bled people, where the remoteness of the institutions and the 
professional isolation of their staff create clos ed communities and a culture of disrespecting 
human dignity and human rights101. Also, the rate of abuse and violence committed against 
women with disabilities, particularly women with severe or mental disab ilities, is believed to 
be much higher than against women without disabilities or even men with disabilities102. 
• Right to life, Protecting the integrity of the person, respect for privacy and respect 
for home and family (Articles 10, 17, 22 and 23)  
Research has in this context questioned the ‘non-i nterference’ characteris tics of these Articles, 
with particular attention to the influence va rious impairments may have on making informed 
decisions (e.g. restrictions, dependency, pai n, fatigue), highlighting the particular 
vulnerability to abuse of pe ople with mental disabilities103. This approach emphasises the role 
of a care provider, par ticularly in situations  where intellectual di sabilities are involved, 
suggesting that the principle of ‘right to se lf-determination’ may not always be appropriate104. 
• Liberty of movement and nationality (Article 18) 
Evidence suggests that the majority of disabled people do not take advant age of their right to 
free movement and that they know little about the Europ ean initiatives in pl ace to support free 
movement105. Around 60  % of respondents to the public consultation for the Disability 
Strategy 2010-2020 agreed or strongly agreed that the strategy should address the fact that EU 
citizens with disabilities find it more difficult to move to another Member State than other EU 
citizens. 
                                                 
100  UN General Assebmbly (2009), ‘Round Table Pa nellists Underline Decision-making Rights of 
Disabled People’ [Online]. 
101  Human Rights Monitoring Institute et al (2005) ‘Human Rights Monitoring in Residential Institutions 
for Mentally Disabled and Psyc hiatric Hospitals’ [Online]. 
102  See ‘Study on women with disabilities’; and Council of Europe (2006), Recommendation of the 
Committee of Ministers to the Member States on th e Council of Europe Action Plan to promote the 
rights and full participation of people with disabilities in society: Improving the Quality of Life of 
People with Disabilities in Europe 2006-2015. 
103  European Journal of Health Law 14 (2007) 273-298: SELECTED LEGISLATION AND 
JURISPRUDENCE - UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 
104  European Journal of Health Law 14 (2007) 149-163 : The Rights of People with an Intellectual 
Disability in the Netherlands: From Restriction to Development. 
105  See LivingAll Free movements and equal opportunitie s for all (LivingAll), ‘Work package 4: Detection 
of Main Barriers’. 
 
EN 26   EN • Participation in political a nd public life (Article 29)  
Research106 findings about political participation: th ere are particular challenges associated 
with the ability of people with di sabilities to represent themselves107; inaccessibility of polling 
stations gives people with disa bilities less opportunity to vote108; and measures to ensure that 
civil rights are granted and can be ex ercised have not been effective enough109. Limited 
accessibility of political venues, of transport facilities, or of in formation (e.g. unavailability of 
material in Braille, large print or audio format ) is likely to prevent people with disabilities 
participating politically in society. 
3.1.2.3.  Economic, social and cultural rights 
• Living independently and being include d in the community (Article 19) 
A study carried out in the EU Member Stat es and Turkey, ‘De-institutionalisation and 
community living: outcomes and costs’, found that nearly 1.2 million children and adults lived in long-stay residential institutions. Over a quarter of places in institutions are filled by 
people with intellectual disabilities, while peop le with mental health problems are the next 
largest group. It is widely acknowledged that traditional institutional living arrangements generally inhibit individuals’ ability to wor k, which clearly has an impact on tax revenues, 
national insurance and pension contributions
110. 
In strategically reshaping this area, the quality of services provided or paid for by public 
authorities as well as their availability should be in focus. Adequate attention to long-term 
care and assistance is needed to  facilitate living at home. L ack of or limited assistance or 
services may partly be related to  structural barriers such as ava ilability of support for assistive 
technologies, access to rehabilitation measures  or adaption of the physical environment111.  
• Personal mobility (Article 20) 
The market for mobility aids a nd assistive technologies is cons iderably fragmented, impacting 
on both the efficiency and afford ability of various solutions. Moreover, there are relatively 
few formal standards that are specific to assi stive devices, although there are large numbers of 
standards that have particular relevan ce for accessibility of  mainstream devices112. However, 
standards may be costly and bot h designers and producers need to  ensure that these standards 
are relevant to their products.  
                                                 
106  See ‘Specific Risks of Discrimination Against Persons in Situation of Major Dependence or with 
Complex Needs’. 
107  ‘ Specific Risks of Discrimination Against Persons in Situation of Major Dependence or with Complex 
Needs’, p. 6. 
108  ‘ Specific Risks of Discrimination Against Persons in Situation of Major Dependence or with Complex 
Needs’, p. 50. 
109  ‘ Specific Risks of Discrimination Against Persons in Situation of Major Dependence or with Complex 
Needs’, p. 51. 
110  See Hurstfield, Jennifer et. al. (2007): ‘The costs and benefits of Independent Living’, report for HM 
Government, Office for Disability Issues, p. 89. 
111  ‘ Specific Risks of Discrimination Against Persons in Situation of Major Dependence or with Complex 
Needs’. 
112  See Gill, John (2009): ‘Assistive Technology and Accessibility Portals’, prepared for DG INFSO 
European Commission, [Online], p. 6-7. 
 
EN 27   EN • Freedom of expression and opinion, and access to information (Article 21) 
A survey carried out by the European Blind Un ion showed that only six European countries 
offer audio description on televisi on and that the provision is very  sparse, representing at most 
about 1  % of programmes (this sh are is higher in the UK)113. Another example can be found in 
a report issued by the European Deaf Union on the status of sign language across Europe: a 
number of Member States have not official ly recognised nationa l sign language either 
constitutionally or through other legal measures114.  
• Education (Article 24)  
LFS data show that in 2002 63  % of the considerably restricted  individuals between the ages 
of 16 and 19 participated in education or training, compared to 75  % of those who were 
restricted to some extent, and 83  % of those not restricted115. This shows higher prevalence of 
early school leaving and limited access to educati on for people with disabilities. At the same 
time, although lifelong learning is  a well-known concept, ther e is limited availability of 
services for e.g. people with high support needs116. 
Article 24 of the UNCRPD highlights the importan ce of an inclusive education system at all 
levels, including lifelong lear ning, vocational training and adul t education, with particular 
emphasis on the provision of reasonable accommodation and support to ensure effective participation in the general education syst em. However, research has shown that the 
obligations of the UNCRPD at this point are no t fulfilled, and that they are unlikely to be 
complied with in the near future
117. Possibilities for accessing ma instream education tend to 
be unavailable for children with severe disabilities118, and segregation is still widespread all 
over Europe119 (e.g. in Germany only 15.7 per cent of all children and a dolescents with 
disabilities attend school togeth er with non-disabled pupils)120.  
• Health (Article 25) 
There are strong indications that the health stat us of people with disabilities is significantly 
worse than that of the average population, also with regard to  non-disability-related health 
risks121. Evidence suggests that limited accessibility to health services and unavailability of 
treatment can lead to incr eased health inequalities122. Barriers to accessing health services 
                                                 
113  European Blind Union (2006) ‘The  future of access to television fo r blind and partially sighted people 
in Europe’ [Online]. 
114  See the EUD website , http://www.e ud.eu/EUD_Sign_Language-i-239.html 
115  See ‘Specific Risks of Discrimination Against Persons in Situation of Major Dependence or with 
Complex Needs’, p.12. 
116  See ‘Specific Risks of Discrimination Against Persons in Situation of Major Dependence or with 
Complex Needs’, p. 46. 
117  See ‘Specific Risks of Discrimination Against Persons in Situation of Major Dependence or with 
Complex Needs’, p. 5. 
118  ‘ Specific Risks of Discrimination Against Persons in Situation of Major Dependence or with Complex 
Needs’, p. 73. 
119  ‘ Specific Risks of Discrimination Against Persons in Situation of Major Dependence or with Complex 
Needs’, p. 74. 
120  See Federal Ministry of Labour and Social  Affairs (Germany): 2009 Disability Report. 
121  See e.g. Department of Health and Human Services, Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (US): 
‘Disability and Health State Charterbook – 2006: Pr ofiles of Health for Adults with Disabilities. 
122  See ‘Specific Risks of Discrimination Against Persons in Situation of Major Dependence or with 
Complex Needs’, p. 19. 
 
EN 28   EN may be physical constraints, logi stical constraints or discrimi natory practice. For example, 
people with disabilities may not be able to reach a doctor’s office, or have access to routine 
treatments123, or people with severe disabilities livi ng in traditional residential institutions 
who need hospital treatment ma y struggle to access the treatment because of logistical 
difficulties in organising support needed from the institution.  
• Habilitation and rehab ilitation (Article 26) 
Although the majority of Member States have  adopted the ILO Convention 159 on vocational 
rehabilitation and employment of people with disabilities, where disa bility is defined by 
‘prospects of securing, retaining and advancing in suitable employment due to impairment’, 
many countries consider rehabilitation to be  a medical problem, reducing it to strictly 
functional rather than social and professional rehabilitation124. As an extension of this topic, 
research has shown that Member State and EU  policies need to be better geared towards 
employers’ and employees’ needs to foster  the idea of reasonable accommodation, for 
example in providing flexible f unding and tailored support services125, and a need for greater 
company efforts to re-integrate workers a nd social responsibility  in facilitating 
reintegration126. 
• Work and employment (Article 27) 
Research has shown that the demands of th e UNCRPD concerning work and employment are 
presently not met in most countries, part icularly for people with complex needs127. On 
average across the OECD countries, employment rates of people with disabilities are just 
above 40  %128.  
The ‘benefit trap’ also poses significant pr oblems for labour market inclusion. In many 
countries, the conditions attached  to receipt of social benefi ts do not allow for employment, 
and the tax system creates de facto  disincentives to particip ating in the labour market129.  
Access to and retention in work  and employment is not only a problem touching people with 
disabilities directly, but also a challenge in th e context of the Lisbon Strategy (as well as its 
successor Europe 2020) and of th e general macroeconomic perf ormance of the EU. Existing 
research suggests that labour market reintegratio n of persons with disabi lities who are capable 
of and willing to work could ra ise employment rates by up to  3.0 percentage points (approx. 
2-3.5 million people at EU level). This would c ontribute significantly to the Europe 2020 goal 
of raising employment rates to 75  % by 2020. Moreover, low labour market participation is 
closely related to low participation in the e ducation system. The EU-S ILC analysis showed 
                                                 
123  See "Specific Risks of Discrimination Against Persons in Situation of Major Dependence or with 
Complex Needs", p. 41. 
124  See European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) (2003), 
‘Illness, disability and social inclusion, p. 101. 
125  See KMU Forschung Austria (2008), ‘Providing reasonable accommodation for persons with 
disabilities in the workplace in the EU – good practices and financ ing schemes’ [Online], p. 3. 
126  See European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) (2003), 
‘Quality of Life in Europe’[Online], p. 129. 
127  "Specific Risks of Discrimination Against Persons in Situation of Major Dependence or with Complex 
Needs", . p61. 
128  See OECD Issues Paper for the High-Lev el Forum on Sickness, Disability and Work, [Online] , p. 11. 
129  See European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) (2003), 
Illness, disability and social inclusion, p. 127. 
 
EN 29   EN for example that of the group with only basic schooling, just 20  % of those who were 
considerably restricted were in employment compared with some 62  % who were not 
restricted.  
• Adequate standard of living and social protection (Article 28) 
Several studies have sh own that poverty and income inequalities result from the manifold 
problems faced by people with disabilities, pa rticularly those rela ted to labour market 
participation and participa tion in general education130. As a result of income, poverty and 
health inequalities, people with disabilities are also more likely to suffer from social exclusion 
and isolation131. 
• Participation in cultural life, recreat ion, leisure and sport (Article 30)  
Access to mainstream leisure activities is still limited for people with disabilities, mainly due 
to architectural barriers132. Many theatres, cinemas and youth cl ubs are still not barrier-free – 
even where by law they should be. At the sa me time there are also organisational and 
conceptual barriers, where staff are not well prepared to welcome and accommodate people 
with e.g. high support needs. Research133 has highlighted limited access to cultural and leisure 
activities for all age groups.  
3.1.2.4.  Governance, institutional cooperation and partnership 
• Statistics and data collection (Article 31)  
State Parties of the UNCRPD commit themselves to collect statistical and research data to 
identify barriers and develop pol icy responses. At present, it is  apparent that comparable and 
consistent data are lacking, both at Member St ate level and at European level. There is a 
shortage of empirical eviden ce, and not enough monitoring a nd evaluation of the needs of 
people with disab ilities and their actual situation134. At Member State level, definitions and 
classification systems do not only va ry from one country to anothe r, but also within the same 
country according to policy objectives, le gislation and administrative standards135. At 
European level, the differing definitions of disa bility have a great impact on the comparability 
of data.  
Most EU-wide data gathering exercises do not di saggregate the data by di sability status, with 
the exception of datasets such as the European  Quality of Life Survey, the ad hoc module of 
the Labour Force Survey in 2002 and the EU-SILC. The lack of statistics and data means that 
                                                 
130  See for example Applica, CESEP, and Alphametric s (2007), ‘Men and women with disabilities in the 
EU: statistical analysis of the LFS ad hoc module and the EU-SILC’. 
131  See "Specific Risks of Discrimination Against Persons in Situation of Major Dependence or with 
Complex Needs", p. 14. 
132  See "Specific Risks of Discrimination Against Persons in Situation of Major Dependence or with 
Complex Needs", p. 36. 
133  See ‘Specific Risks of Discrimination Against Persons in Situation of Major Dependence or with 
Complex Needs’, p. 36. 
134  ANED, ‘The implementation of EU social inclusion and social protection strategies in European 
countries with reference to equality for disabled people [Online], p. 2. 
135  See Applica, CESEP, and European Centre (2007) , ‘Compilation of disability statistical data coming 
from the administrative registers of the Member States’, p. 4. 
 
EN 30   EN there is a weak empirical basis both for the development of national and European policies 
and for an evaluation of the effectiveness of such policies. 
• National implementation and monitoring (Article 33)  
National focal points on disabili ty issues are already in place in most governments and a few 
have formally designated focal poi nts for the UNCRPD. It is likel y that functions of the focal 
points in the sense of the UNCRPD would ‘i mplicitly’ be carried out by these existing 
disability focal points within government. Ex ceptions are e.g. Slovenia, where formally 
designated entities have been established as focal points for the Convention, and Spain, where 
the mandate of existing entities ha s been officially revised to e xplicitly include the focal point 
function136. 
Further, in several countries , disability coordination mech anisms that focus on policy 
development, promotion of dialogue, awarene ss-raising etc. and ar e often housed within 
ministries of social welfare predate the UNC RPD. However, the effectiveness of these 
mechanisms is often low due to the narrowness of their legal mandate, lack of resources and limited involvement of pers ons with disabilities.  
Across the European Union, interviews with th e main stakeholders have shown that more 
effective coordination within the EU instituti ons, and in particular within the different 
Commission departments dealing with disabi lity-related issues, would be necessary.
137 
Furthermore, the UNCRPD requires involvement  and full participation of persons with 
disabilities and their organisations in the monitoring process.  
• Reports by States Parties, Cooperation be tween States Parties and the Committee, 
and Conference of States Part ies (Articles 35, 37 and 40)  
Each state party to the UNCRPD must submit a comprehensive report on measures taken and 
progress made within two years af ter the entry into force of th e Convention for the state party 
concerned, and at least ever y four years thereafter.  
At EU level, disability is included in the Op en Method of Coordination  for Social Protection 
and Social Inclusion, but it is not yet routinely and effectivel y reported on in this forum. 
Furthermore, although the High-Level Group on Disa bility (set up to co ordinate policies and 
priorities between the EU and national governme nts, and to share good practice) is generally 
considered a valuable forum, its impact and responsibility for implementation of the 
UNCRPD remains limited. The role of DHLG and the SPSI OMC will be crucial for the new 
strategy, particularly for support by the European  Union to Member States in implementing 
the UNCRPD. 
The EU Fundamental Rights Agency will also be ca lled upon to contribute to this task, within 
the framework of its mandate, by data collection, research and analysis.  
                                                 
136  See Thematic study by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the 
structure and role of national mechanisms for the implementation and monitoring of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 
137  Mid-term Evaluation of the European Action Plan  2003-2010 on Equal Opportunities for People with 
Disabilities, p. 167. 
 
EN 31   EN 3.1.2.5.  Study on challenges and good practices in implementa tion of the UNCRPD in 
Europe 
The aim of this study was to gather informa tion on the process of implementing the UNCRPD 
in Europe. The contractor, EFC, identified the following issues: 
– The paradigm shift towards treat ing people with disabilities as full ‘subjects’ bearing equal 
rights and deserving equal respect, and not as ‘objects’ to be managed or pitied has been 
uneven across the Member States. The obligati on to perform a ‘screening exercise’ of the 
conformity of legislation to th e UNCRPD is largely unfulfilled. 
– Only a few Member States have extended the application of the principle of non-
discrimination beyond the area of employment. Th e material scope of the duty to provide 
reasonable accommodation remains limited and th ere is a lack of laws addressing inter-
sectional and multiple discrimination. 
– Monitoring of the implementation of the principl e of accessibility, wher e it is included in 
legislation, appears to be ine ffective. Additional problems ar e numerous exceptions and the 
lack of disability-specific training for professionals (e .g. architects and engineers). 
– A large number of Member States continue to operate restrictive guardianship laws and 
policies. Where legislative reforms provide fo r personal assistants to support people with 
disabilities in decision-making, the distinction between  such assistants and guardians is not 
clear enough. In many cases ther e are insufficient safeguards. 
– Several national policies are focused on improv ing institutional care instead of moving 
residents of such institutions into the community. Where national policies do promote 
independent living, individualised funding sc hemes (personal budgets) are frequently 
absent. 
– Key concepts, such as ‘discrimination’ and ‘reasonable accommodation’ , are inconsistently 
interpreted by Member States. Neither Di rective 2000/78/EC nor many of the Member 
States explicitly define an unjustified denial of  reasonable accommodation as a form of 
discrimination. Low participati on rates in the labour market for persons with disabilities 
suggest that existing legislation ma y not be effective in practice. 
– In most Member States, while education for persons with special educational needs can 
take place in ordinary establishments, the opt ion of sending children  with disabilities to 
special educational facili ties is permissible and in most cases favoured. 
– Provisions to allow participation in voting procedures are not enough to ensure full and 
effective participation of all persons with disa bilities. While polling stations may be largely 
accessible, ballots and general information about the elections are not provided in 
alternative formats (e.g. Braille or easy-to-read formats). 
– The data and statistics are insufficient for informed policymaking. 
– Additionally, the information on governance  and reporting systems required by the 
UNCPRD is inadequate. 
The same study made the following recommendations: 
 
EN 32   EN – The UNCRPD ratification process should be used  to raise awareness of disability issues. 
At the same time, the use of reservations, interpretative declarations or ‘explanatory memorandums’ should be avoided. 
– The EU and Member States should conduct a comprehensive ‘screening exercise’ of 
legislation and, if necessary, should modify or  abolish existing instruments in order to 
ensure full compliance with the UNCRPD. In th e course of this scr eening, all stakeholders 
should be involved and conformity  with the social m odel of disability should be ensured. 
– Appropriate training of public servants, includi ng judiciary staff, s hould be organised to 
ensure the application of EU and national law in a manner that is most consistent with the UNCRPD. 
– The provision of reasonable accommodation s hould be extended to a ll areas of social, 
political, civil and economic lif e covered by the prohibition of  discrimination. Legislation 
should make clear that unjustified denial  of reasonable accommodation is a form of 
discrimination. 
– Legislation should cater for the adoption of pos itive measures required to promote de facto 
equality of persons with disabilities, in  conformity with Article 5(4) UNCRPD. 
– The EU and Member States should cooperate to  ensure that the principle of accessibility 
applies to all policy sectors (employment, educa tion, transport, ICT, justice, etc.) and that 
adequate accessibility require ments and standards are estab lished. This should include a 
clear time frame for achieving conformity, i ndicating the sanctions in cases of non-
compliance, and should be applie d in both urban and rural areas. 
– Legislation should be revised to abolish re strictive guardianship laws and policies. 
Measures should be taken to ensure acc ess to supported decision-making, whereas 
effective safeguards to ensure that assistants do not abuse their position should be established. 
– Member States should shift their focus from  improving institutional care to relocating the 
residents of such institutions in the comm unity. Community-based services should be 
adequately funded and sufficiently resourced, and individualised f unding schemes should 
be accessible to all persons with disabilities. 
– Legislation and policy should resp ect the rights of pe rsons with disabilities to be educated 
in an inclusive education system.  
– The EU and its Member States should ensure th at disability-specific data and statistics are 
appropriate to support policy development and monitoring related to the implementation of 
the UNCRPD. 
3.1.3.  Europe 2020 
The European Union’s new strategy for jobs and smart, sustainable and inclusive growth 
(Europe 2020)  addresses structural and long-term ch allenges of the European economies, 
identified as globalisation, pressure on reso urces and ageing. To reach the five headline 
targets — in the fields of employment, research  and development, environment, education and 
poverty reduction — this approach involves mob ilising all EU instruments and policies and 
 
EN 33   EN coordinated action of the Member States, and seven ‘flagship initiatives’  have been 
formulated to ensure delivery. 
People with disabilities are a ddressed in the flagship initiatives, most prominently in the 
‘European platform against Poverty’  aiming to boost social in clusion and fighting poverty 
inter alia through the design and implementati on of programmes to promote social innovation 
for disabled persons and definition and implemen tation of measures addr essing their specific 
circumstances. Other thematic priorities, such as  assessment of adequacy and sustainability of 
social protection and pension systems, hea lth care systems, income support and access to 
health care are of utmost importance for peop le with disabilities and their families. The 
‘Agenda for new skills and jobs’  aiming to raise employment a nd activity rates, e.g. through 
reviewing tax and benefit systems, touches on th e issue of the extremely low employment and 
activity rates of persons with disabilities and the ‘benefit tr ap’ partly responsible for this. By 
focusing on transitions from education to empl oyment and on training the increasing inflow 
into disability benefits of young people shou ld be counteracted. In  this resp ect also ‘Youth on 
the move’ offers multiple links with the disability strategy by addressing openness and 
relevance of education systems, promoting entr epreneurship, fostering mobility etc. But also 
the ‘Innovation Union’ and ‘Digital Agenda for Europe’  address overlapping issues.  
In addition the Commission will mainstream a disa bility perspective in all flagship initiatives. 
The targets for employment, e ducation and poverty reduction can only be achieved if the 
situation of persons with  disabilities in Europe is substantially improved. 
3.2. Views of the European institutions  
Council Resolution (2008/C 75/01) on the situati on of persons with disabilities in the 
European Union138 invited the Member States and the Commission to begin work on an EU 
disability strategy to succeed the current European Disability Action Plan 2003-2010. The 
new strategy should inter alia assess how na tional actions reflect the commitments entered 
into by the European Community and the Me mber States. The Reso lution suggests setting 
national targets. Council Resolution (10173/10)
139 of 8 June 2010 calls for grea ter inclusion of people with 
disabilities and their families in society by ma instreaming disability issues, and by launching 
initiatives in the areas of education, employment  and social affairs, international affairs and 
development. The Resolution invites the Commi ssion to prepare a new European Disability 
Strategy building on the values enshrined in th e European Treaties, the Europe 2020 Strategy 
and the UNCRPD. A first informal ministerial meeting on disa bility issues was organised by the German 
Presidency on 11 June 2007. It mandate d the Disability High-Level Group
 to report annually 
on the progress by the EU and the Member States in implementing the Convention. A second informal ministerial meeting was or ganised by the Slovenian Presidency on 22 May 
2008. Based on the information provided by the Memb er States and the discussion held by the 
High Level Group, it c oncluded that among the actions of common interest and added 
European value are: development of consistent  and comparable data, targets and indicators; 
common approaches for the reporting requir ed under the UNCRPD; exchange of good 
practices (e.g. on accessibility, legal capacity, access to justice, independent living, voting 
                                                
 
138   See European Union, ‘Resolution of the Council of the European Union and the representatives of the 
Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council of 17 March 2008 on the situation of 
persons with disabilities in the European Union’. 
139   Council Resolution (10173/10) of 8 June 2010. 
 
EN 34   EN rights); cooperation in the production of accessibi lity guidelines and standards for products 
and services.140 
A third informal ministerial meeting was or ganised by the Spanish Presidency on 19 May 
2010. The Trio presidency committed itself, am ong other things: to promote and encourage 
the prompt ratification and full implementation of the UNCRPD; to enhance the role of the 
Disability High Level Group; to advance the mainstreaming of disability issues with an 
emphasis on areas such as access to housing, education, vocational guidance and training, transport, information and communication tec hnologies and participa tion in society; to 
promote the allocation of adequate funds in the new EU budget to ensure disability policies 
implementation The European Parliament, in its resoluti on of 24 April 2009 on the conclusion of the 
UNCRPD
141, called on ‘the Community and the Memb er States to incorporate all the 
provisions of the Convention into law, to ta ke the measures and provide financial means 
necessary for their application within specific  deadlines and to set quantitative objectives for 
this’. Also, in its resolution of 4 September 2007 on the Single Market Review142, it stressed 
the importance of ensuring that all members of the public benefit from the Single Market and 
pointed out that ‘Declaration No 22 annexed to  the final act of the Treaty of Amsterdam 
provides that the institutions of the Community shall take acc ount of the needs of persons 
with a disability in drawing up measures under Article 95 of  the Treaty’. Furthermore it called 
‘for the continuing development of design sta ndards, with the aim of further improving 
accessibility for disabled people, the elderly and children; stresses the importance that this 
process has had in areas such as urban buses, li fts, electrical appliances and information and 
communications technologies (IC T) in extending the benefits  of the Single Market to 
vulnerable citizens and in creating greater certai nty and preventing the cr eation of barriers to 
industry in the Union’. The European Economic and Social Committee has drawn up an exploratory opinion on 
‘People with disabilities: empl oyment and accessibility by stag es for people with disabilities 
in the EU post-2010 Lisbon Strategy’.
143 The opinion included calls fo r: a specific section on 
disability to be included in the Europe 2020 strategy, the Employment Guidelines and the 
Social Agenda; policies that fost er innovation, are based on statisti cal data and gi ve visibility 
to people with disabilities in all relevant European and national statistics; eAccessibility 
legislation to be presented; an intensive acti on plan on development of accessibility standards 
and ‘design for all’. The EESC also backs the development of a ‘European disability card’ that would facilitate mutual recognition of rights and cross-border tr avel for people with 
disabilities. 
                                                
 
140  Presidency Conclusions following the second informal ministerial meeting on Disability issues [Online] 
and European Commission (2009), ‘Discrimination in  the EU in 2009’ Special Eurobarometer Report 
317 [Online]. 
141  European Parliament resolution of 24 April 2009 on the conclusion, by the European Community, of 
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol 
thereto [Online]. 
142  European Parliament resolution of 4 September 2007 on the Single Market Review: tackling barriers 
and inefficiencies through better implementation and enforcement [Online]. 
143  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on People with Disabilities: Employment 
and Accessibility by Stages  for People with Disabilities in the EU. [Online]. 
 
EN 35   EN 3.3. Stakeholder consultation  
3.3.1.  Consultation of Member States (DHLG) 
Member State experts have been consulted fr om the beginning of the strategy formulation 
process. The Disability High Level Group (DHLG) meeting of  1 and 2 April 2009 included a 
first exchange of opinions on priorities and obj ectives. This was followed up by discussions in 
the meetings of 22 June and 14-15 October 200 9. In the meeting of the DHLG held on 23-24 
March 2010, the MS were invited to discu ss the strategy draft and attempt to reach 
compromise commitments on MS actions to comp ly with the UNCRPD. In the meeting of the 
DHLG held on 9 June 2010, a number of pot ential actions were discussed.  
3.3.2.  Consultation of civil society stakeholders 
All NGOs co-financed through the PROGRESS progr amme were invited to put forward their 
views, as were all participants at the yearly conference of the European Day of Persons with Disabilities. During the cust omary annual meetings with the NGOs receiving PROGRESS 
grants, the issues of the new strategy were th e main item on the agenda. As a result, many of 
the main stakeholders submitted their proposals for the strategy in writing. 
A consultative workshop with the main stakeholders took place on 5 March 2010. Participants 
represented civil society, sectoral  business and the social partners. 
In addition, EDF — the Europe-wide umbre lla organisation of disability NGOs, which 
receives financial support from the Europ ean Commission — was consulted in bilateral 
meetings. 
3.3.3.  General public consultation 
From 4 November 2009 to 4 January 2010, a public online consultation was held on the 
Commission’s central consul tation website, Your Voice in Europe. The extensive 
questionnaire received 336 replies,  including 101 on beha lf of a wide variet y of organisations. 
Nine targeted responses were received se parately. The members of the DHLG were 
encouraged to respond and to raise awareness about the consultation at  national level. The 
public consultation yielded evidence on the existe nce and spread of discrimination, as well as 
priorities in thematic areas and expectations of the main actors in th e field of disability. 
3.4. Surveys and expert input  
3.4.1.  Special Eurobarometers on Discrimination 
Both the 2006 and 2009 special Eurobarometers focusing on discrimination in the European 
Union showed that 53
 % of respondents across the EU believed that disability-related 
discrimination was widespread144.  
Discrimination on the basis of disability was in 2006 perceived to be most widespread in Italy 
(68  %) and France (66  %) and least so in Denmark (32  %). In 2009, discrimination was most 
                                                 
144  See European Commission (2007), ‘Discrimination in the European Union’ Special Eurobarometer 263, 
p. 48, and European Commission (2009), ‘Discrimination in the EU in 2009’ Special Eurobarometer 
Report 317, p. 78. 
 
EN 36   EN acutely perceived in France (74  %), followed by Latvia and Hungary (both 64  %). The EU 
countries where this perception was least common in 2009 were Malta (33  %) and Ireland 
(35  %). In 2006, Malta and Denmark had the lo west perception of disability-related 
discrimination, with respectively 34  % and 32  %. 
In 2008, 45  % of respondents felt that discrimination on grounds of disability was widespread, 
with extremes of 21  % in Malta and 61  % in France145. 
According to the results of the 2006 and 2009 Eu robarometers on discrimination, disability is 
the type of discrimination most widely recogn ised, yet awareness of the existence of anti-
discrimination law in the EU is quite low — around a third of the European public are 
confident in their knowledge of  their rights if they consider themselves victims of 
discrimination or harassment146. At the same time, 91  % of respondents in the 2006 
Eurobarometer survey agreed that more mo ney should be spent on  eliminating physical 
barriers for people with disabilities147 (in 2009, this question was not asked). 
3.4.2.  In 2009, the special Eurobarometer found that  close to a third of Europeans felt 
totally comfortable with the idea of havi ng a disabled person in the highest elected 
political office in thei r country. It is interesting to note that managers are much more 
comfortable than other occupational groups. 148ANED recommendations on the 
future disability strategy 
The Academic Network of European Disabili ty Experts (ANED) operates under a service 
contract with the European Commission and c onsists of experts, mainly from academic 
institutions covering the EU Me mber States and the EFTA c ountries. The aim of this pan-
European academic network is to support policy development by providing data, analysis and 
independent insight into disability issues in the EU. Experts are res ponsible for reporting on 
the situation in their country. A steering board  compiles and analyses national reports and 
provides a European overview. 
At the ANED annual meeting in November 2009,149 the Working Group on the priorities for 
future law and policy development provided input  to the preparation of the new European 
Disability strategy. The main elements  of these recommendations were:  
• Using UNCRPD as a reference point in form ulating the disability strategy for years 
2010 to 2020. 
• Ensuring that EU funding is not used to discriminate against disabled people or 
perpetuate disadvantage 
• Enhancing the mainstreaming of disability acros s relevant EU policies providing a list of 
key thematic areas 
                                                 
145  See European Commission (2008), Discrimination in the European Union: Perceptions, Experiences 
and Attitudes. Summary of the Special Eurobarometer 296 [Online] p. 9. 
146  European Commission (2009), ‘Discrimination in the EU in 2009’ Special Eurobarometer Report 317, 
p. 34. 
147  See European Commission (2007), ‘Discrimination in the European Union’ Special Eurobarometer 263, 
p. 13. 
148  See European Commission (2007), ‘Discrimination in the European Union’ Special Eurobarometer 263, 
July 2007, p. 84. 
149  ANED website  
http://www.disability-europe.net/en/home/Hom e%20seminar%202009EN.jsp?jsEnabled=1 
 
EN 37   EN • Using a wide range of EU instruments, su ch as legislation, f unding, awareness-raising, 
research. 
Specific comments referred to using the Op en Method of Coordination to promote 
implementation of the UNCRPD at national level,  involving disability organisations in the 
planning, delivery and monitoring of policies, ga thering of statistical data and use of the 
structural and regional funds. 
4. EUROPEAN DISABILITY STRATEGY 2010-2020:  OBJECTIVES  
4.1. General objectives 
Based on the issues and inputs a bove, the overall objec tives of the next Eu ropean Disability 
Strategy will be to empower persons with disa bilities and to improve their situation notably 
by means of contributing to co mpliance with the UNCRPD.  
By signing the UNCRPD, the EU and the Memb er States have committed themselves to 
complying with its obligations. Those obligati ons can be divided into two general groups: 
formal, related to governance issues, and substantiv e, related to thematic areas (highlighted in 
section 2). Therefore, the overall design of th e new strategy will be defined by the following 
general objectives: 
• Ensure effective governance to implement the UNCRPD;  
• Comply with the substantive obligations of the UNCRPD.  
4.2. Specific objectives 
The two general objectives can be expanded into the following specific  objectives: 
• Governance issues: 
(1) Setting up a proper follow-up framework to comp ly with procedural obligations of the 
UNCRPD undertaken by Member States and EU institutions, such as: establishing 
independent mechanisms to promote, pr otect and monitor implementation of the 
UNCRPD; designating focal poi nts for implementation of the UNCRPD; establishing 
coordination mechanisms to faci litate related action in differe nt sectors and at different 
levels; complying with reporting obligations. 
(2) Significantly improving monitoring and ev aluation by: creating conditions for 
improving the quality and comparability of da ta; developing relevant indicators and 
possibly common targets; collecting reliable data and statistics. 
• Thematic areas: 
Identifying concrete and appropriate acti ons (legislation, polic y, funding, awareness-
raising, research, etc.) at EU and national level to co mply with all substantive 
obligations of the UNCRPD undertaken by Memb er States and EU in stitutions in areas 
such as: accessibility, participation, equa lity, employment, edu cation and training, 
living standards and social protection, hea lth, and external action. These thematic 
areas correspond largely to i ssues covered in the articles of the UNCRPD and have 
 
EN 38   EN been selected according to th eir relevance to existing Eur opean policies and where EU 
instruments allow for action with EU added value. Most of the thematic areas correspond to one or more articles in th e UNCRPD with the corresponding scope for 
action. 
• Support activities: 
(3) Identifying cross-cutting support activities,  such as: exchange of information; 
exchange of good practices; experts’ dialogu e; awareness-raising;  research; dialogue 
with civil society. 
5. E
UROPEAN DISABILITY STRATEGY 2010-2020 
5.1. Justification for reinforced action 
The EU has a strong mandate from its Member Stat es to improve the situ ation of persons with 
disabilities. First, Artic le 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the 
Charter)150 states that ‘Human dignity is inviolab le. It must be respected and protected.’ 
Secondly, Article 26 of the Charter states that ‘ the European Union recognises and respects 
the right of persons with disabi lities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their 
independence, social and occupational integr ation and participation in the life of the 
community ’, and Article 21 prohibits any discrimina tion on the basis of disability.  Thirdly, 
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European  Union (TFEU) requires the Union to combat 
discrimination based on disability when defini ng and implementing its policies and activities 
(Article 10) and gives it the pow er to adopt legislation to addr ess such discrimination (Article 
19).  
The current EU Disability Action Plan runs till the end of 2010. When the UNCRPD enters 
into force for the EU151, the Union will have to comply with its obligations to the extent of its 
competences152. Although the date when the UNCRPD will enter into force throughout the 
EU is not yet known153, there is a need to set up the necessary coordination and 
implementation mechanisms that will allow the EU to comply with th e obligations stemming 
from the Convention.  
                                                 
150  According to Article 51, the Charter  provisions ar e addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and 
agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. The Charter does not extend the field of application of Union 
law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify 
powers and tasks as defined in the Treaties.
 
151  The UNCRPD will enter into force for the EU 30 days  after the person designated by the President of 
the Council deposits, on behalf of the EU, the instru ment of formal confirmation with the Secretary-
General of the United Nations. The deposition of the instrument of formal confirmation on behalf of the EU is conditioned by the adoption of a Code of Conduct concerning the details of the function of focal 
point and appropriate arrangements for representation of the EU’s position at meetings of the bodies 
created by the UN Convention (Article 3 and 4 of Council Decision 2010/48/EC concerning the 
conclusion, by the European Community, of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons 
with Disabilities). 
152  Declaration concerning the comp etence of the European Community with regard to matters governed 
by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 
153  By July 2010, 15 EU Member States had ratified the UNCRPD. 
 
EN 39   EN In the Decision concerning the EU’s conclusi on of the UNCRPD, the Union declared the 
extent of its competences with respect to ma tters governed by the Convention. A number of 
pieces of secondary legislation we re identified and listed to illust rate the extent of the area of 
EU competence, in particular regarding the fields of accessibility, independent living and 
social inclusion, work and employment, personal mobility, access to information, statistics and data collection, and internat ional cooperation. All these fields have been covered – to 
different extents – by the Di sability Action Plan 2003-2010.  
To enable the EU to comply with the obligations arising from becoming party to the 
UNCRPD, the European Disability Strategy 20 10-2020 will need to co ntinue addressing the 
issues covered in the declaration of compet ence. In addition, the EU 's adherence to the 
UNCRPD implies a need for Disability 2020 to provide also for certain governance measures, 
including: 
• coordination in relation to UNCRPD reporting activities; 
• exchange of information with regard to  the Committee on Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities;  
• exchange of information and coopera tion between Member States and the 
Commission with regard to the Conference of States Parties. 
Furthermore, the UNCRPD implies a number of obligations for the EU institutions that the 
European Disability Strategy 2010-20 20 will need to address, namely: 
• dealing with employment of people with  disabilities in the EU institutions; 
• ensuring that in the recruitment process people with disabilities have more 
opportunity to compete with  non-disabled candidates; 
• improving accessibility of buildings, websites, ICT tools and documents. 
However, to achieve compliance with the substantive obligati ons of the UNCRPD (the second 
general objective of the strategy) it is clearly necessary to have ambitious reinforcement of 
the current DAP. All of the political and stakehol der input has pointed to the conclusion that 
additional and stronger measures are needed in the areas where the EU is already active and 
also in the areas where there has been little EU activity.  
A set of actions to ambitiously reinforce the present activities is presented in a Commission 
Staff Working Document accompanying the Co mmunication on the Eur opean Disability 
Strategy 2010-2020. It covers eight main thematic  areas as well as four horizontal areas. 
5.2. Expected  impact 
Ambitious reinforcement of the current EU di sability policy, including through the proposed 
strategy for the period 2010-2020, is expected to ha ve a substantial positive impact in terms of 
fulfilling the obligations undertaken by signing and concluding the UNCRPD and to improve 
the social and economic situati on of persons with disabilities , especially in  the areas not 
served well enough by the current DAP. In view of the progress already made under the latter, 
the proposed strategy app ears to have potential to succeed, as it aims to remain flexible and 
respect the traditions of the Member States. Given that the policy ob jectives of a new EU 
 
EN 40   EN disability strategy require a significant amount of  coordinated action by the Member States as 
well as coordination with the European Un ion, the actions proposed in the annex are 
proportionate to the challenge without going be yond what is necessary,  while respecting the 
principle of subsidiarity. Furthermore, other vulnerable groups in society, such as older 
persons, will benefit from the measures proposed  under the strategy, and it will be sufficiently 
flexible to accommodate input from diverse stakeholders, such  as industry and consumers. 
5.3. Monitoring and evaluation of the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 
5.3.1.  Observing the requirements of the UNCRPD  
The UNCRPD requires each party to submit to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities a comprehensive report on measures taken to give effect to its obligations under 
the Convention and on progress made in that re gard. This report has to be submitted within 
two years after the entry into fo rce of the Convention for the part y and thereafter at least every 
four years and further whenever the Committ ee so requests. During its second session the 
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilitie s prepared guidelines to  be used as a tool 
to facilitate reporting on implementation of the UNCRPD154. When the Convention enters 
into force for the EU, all of its institutions an d bodies will have to evaluate their compliance 
with the UNCRPD, referring to the said guide lines. The self assessment and subsequent EU 
report must have regard to Ar ticles of the Convention under Un ion competence, in particular 
as defined in the declaration attached as A nnex II to Council Decision 2010/48/EC concerning 
the conclusion of the UNCRPD by the EU. Pu rsuant to Article 3 of the Decision, the 
European Commission was designated to be a fo cal point. Certain aspects of monitoring and 
reporting will be detailed in a Code of Conduct, which is currently under discussion. 
The general principles for monitoring and evalua ting the strategy will be linked to those for 
monitoring the UNCRPD. These principles are presented in a study entitled ‘Monitoring the 
Implementation of the UN Convention on the Right s of Persons with Di sabilities in Europe: 
Principles for the Identification and Use of Indicators’155. The study provides a number of 
recommendations with regard to monitoring th e UNCRPD, which are also of use for this 
strategy. It notes, for example, that ‘approp riate indicators of outcome should allow for 
comparisons over time, between disabled and non-disabled people (bet ween different groups 
of disabled people), and between  countries’, and that there is  a need for a combination of 
simple statistical indicators and qualitative ones.  The study also stresses the need to focus on 
‘long-term’ impairments, as well as intersectionality (e.g. of impairment with age, gender, 
ethnicity, religion, a nd sexual orientation)156. 
5.3.2.  The strategy and the policy cycle  
Monitoring and evaluation arrangements will be de signed to facilitate better decision-making 
by feeding into the policy cycle. In im plementing the strate gy, the Commission will 
periodically need to (re)examine ope rational objectives and related actions. 
                                                 
154  Guidelines on treaty-specific document to be submitted by states parties under article 35, paragraph 1, 
of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Di sabilities (Note by UN Secretary General) [Online]. 
155  See Academic Network of European Disability Experts (ANED) (2009), ‘Monitoring the 
Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Europe: Principles for the Identification and Use of Indicators’. 
156  (ANED) (2009), ‘Monitoring the Implementation of  the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities in Europe: Principles for the Identification and Use of Indicators, p. 36. 
 
EN 41   EN Progress and any necessary revision should be discussed with stakeholders – e.g. in the 
Disability High Level Group. In line with the UNCRPD, persons with disabilities and their 
representative organisations will be involved.  
5.3.3.  Reporting on progress  
The reporting process of the European Disa bility Strategy 2010-2020 will follow the reporting 
requirements of the UNCRPD, where each state party must submit a comprehensive report on 
measures taken and progress made, first within two years after the entry into force of the 
Convention, and at least ev ery four years thereafter. 
The Commission will base its reports on both it s own monitoring arrangements (improving 
efforts for collection of statistics and colle ction of qualitative data and analysis through a 
network of European disability experts) and reports of the Member States party to the 
UNCRPD. Any relevant evaluation exercises in re spect of specific actions will feed into the 
monitoring and evaluation fr amework of the strategy.  
The Commission will also establ ish a web-based tool giving an overview of the practical 
measures and legislation being used by MS and the EU to implement the Convention. A 
detailed description of the t ool and the plans for implementa tion is included in Annex 2. 
Finally the Commission aims to develop in the coming years, de pending on the availability of 
data, a framework of output and outcome i ndicators for the disabi lity strategy policy 
evaluation. A serious effort will be made to  assess the causality between outputs and 
outcomes as far as possible so as to make recommendations on the effectiveness of the 
activities. In particular, three potential indicators linking to ke y targets of Europe 2020 in the 
areas of employment, poverty reduction and educa tion have been identified as priorities for 
development. 
 
EN 42   EN ANNEX 1 – SUMMARY OF THE MAIN OUTCOMES OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION  
1. Background to the public consultation 
On 4 November 2009 the Commission launche d a two-month online public consultation 
called "Public consultation on th e preparation of a new EU Disability Strategy 2010-2020". 
The aim of the consultation was to provide the possibility to different stakeholders 
(organisations, public authoritie s, individuals including persons  with disabilities and their 
organisations, enterprises) from all Member Stat es to give their opinion on the problems that 
persons with disabilities face in Europe and the ways to so lve them. The consultation was also 
designed to give feedback on pr iorities and challenges for the future of the European 
disability policy and the fo rthcoming strategy 2010-2020.  
The new disability strategy is needed to ad dress new challenges and opportunities since the 
launching of the European Disa bility Action plan in 2003:  
• obligations taken by the EU and the Memb er States by signing and ratifying the UN 
Convention on the Rights of Pe rsons with Disabilities,  
• increase in differences in the situation of pe rsons with disabilities across the EU connected 
to the accession of twelve Member States in 2004 and 2007,  
• the current demographic trends a nd the situation of  the economy.  
The consultation focuses on issues at European le vel. However, many areas of vital interest to 
persons with disabilities, such as content an d structure of education, the norms for built 
environment and public spaces, leisure issues as well as social assistance are mainly in the 
competence of the Member States. Often they  are dealt with by the local authorities. 
Therefore the public consultation also addressed the question of appropria te actors for each 
thematic area as well as questions of governance. I  
2. Questionnaire 
The questions were divided into 6 groups: 
1) Profile of the respondents; 2) What should the new EU disability strategy cover;  3) Ten thematic areas (Accessibility; Employ ment; Education; Healthcare; Free movement; 
Independent living; Participation in democratic and public life; Participation in cultural life; 
recreation; leisure and sport; Adequate standard s of living and social protection; Freedom and 
dignity); 
4) Governance issues; 5) The role of the European Union 6) Any other remarks 
 
EN 43   EN Depending on a concrete question, the respondents were asked to evaluate on a 5-point scale 
(with a neutral position in the middle) the useful ness of a selection of activities; the relevance 
of different actors in addressi ng the issues or the importan ce of the different problems. 
3. Statistics and prof ile of the respondents 
In the period 4 November 2009 until 4 January 2010 a total of 336 respon ses were received to 
the online consultation. Given th e effort needed to reply to a questionnaire with a large 
number of questions, the particip ation is a positive indicator of a public interest in the area. 
70% of the responses came from individual pers ons not representing any type of organisation 
or public body, 30% of the responses were on behalf of different organisations.  
The individual respondents were in the fo llowing age groups: 8% up to 24 years; 55% 25-49 
years; 32% 50-64 years and 3% 65 or older. 57% of the respondents were female and 43% 
male. 
The most common countries of origin were: Germany and UK (23%), followed by Belgium 
(7%), France, Ireland and Italy (5% each). 
49% of the individual query participants were persons with disabilities, further 16% of the 
respondents were family members or non-paid car eers for persons with disabilities and 8% 
take care of persons with disabilities as a paid job. 
9 responses from organisations were received separately, in a format chosen by the sender. 
4. What should the new EU disability strategy cover  
This section of the questionnaire yielded str ong evidence of perception of discrimination.  
79% of respondents agreed or strongly agr eed that persons with disabilities face 
discrimination in their everyday activities because of their di sabilities. 44% of individual 
respondents indicated that they had experienced problems because of their disabilities, further 
45% had indirect experience, through friends or family. 
Responding to questions on the main areas of daily living, the respondents saw every one of 
them as important or very important for pe rsons with disabilities. For almost 95% of 
respondents, lack of access to th e built environment was an importa nt or very important issue. 
Just one percentage point behi nd was the lack of e qual opportunities in the job market. 91% 
saw the lack equal opportunitie s in education and difficulties  in independent living as 
important or very important issues. 
79% of responses confirm that equal access to healthcare is impor tant or very important for 
persons with disabilities. 
The item with the "lowest" importa nce rating in this section - barriers to free movement – still 
achieves 68%. These high percentages suggest a need for action in a wide range of areas covering most aspects of life. 
5. Thematic areas  
 
EN 44   EN In section 11 the main results per thematic area are given in tabular form. In this section the 
main findings are described per area.  
Accessibility 
Most favoured tools in the area of accessibility were legisla tion and measuring. Guidelines 
and research were the less favoured tools in th is area. Greater involvement of persons with 
disabilities received ratings "very effective or effective" from 78% of respondents. As regards 
the actors, the respondents saw a clear need for more effort from all established actors. 98% 
of respondents said that nationa l governments should do "more" or "much more" in the area, 
for local government and private sector this share was respectively 91% and 88%. For the EU 
this share was 86%, ahead of NGOs (72%) and "other" (27%). 85% of  respondents agreed 
that harmonising rules and sta ndards for accessible goods and serv ices was important or very 
important. 
Employment  
In the area of employment, all measures propose d in the consultation r eceived over 74% of 
"useful" or "very useful" ratings, with promo tion of self-employment and training to job-
seekers being the lowest-rated (74% and 77 % respectively) and pr ovision of assistive 
technologies and increasing acces sibility of workplaces the highest-rated (88% and 87% 
respectively). Fighting discrimination and rais ing awareness were very highly rated, along 
with making standard technologies and digita l content accessible (all 86%). 83% of the 
respondents considered more a nd better labour market  support services "useful" or "very 
useful", enforcement of the obligation to make reasonable accommodation at t he workplace 
received 82%. 77% of respondents considered dealing with the "b enefit trap" useful or very 
useful. 
Education 
In the area of education, accessibility of le arning materials emerged clearly as the most 
critical issue with 90% of respondents indicating th at action in this area would be useful or 
very useful. This was closely followed by increas ing the accessibility of buildings (89%). At 
the other end of scale, scholarsh ips and grants for persons with  disabilities enjoyed support of 
73% of respondents. Awareness-raising to in crease social acceptance of persons with 
disabilities and specific training for teachers on accommodating the persons with disabilities 
in classroom were seen as useful or very usef ul by respectively 87% and 86% of respondents. 
Support for increasing resources to bring students with disabilities into the general and higher 
education systems was at the 84% level. Finall y, mechanism enabling the move from special 
to general education and adapting adult educ ation and training programmes were supported 
by respectively 83% and 82% of respondents. 
Healthcare  
In the area of healthcare, prohibiting discrimina tion in provision of health insurance emerged 
as the most supported measure (86% responden ts said that it w ould improve access to 
healthcare "clearly" or "very much"). Specific tr aining for health professionals followed with 
83%. Developing more health services for spec ial needs of persons with disabilities was 
supported by more than three quarters of re spondents. Preventive action to reduce the 
incidence of disabilities enjoye d lowest popularity, but 64% is still a signifi cant level of 
support.  
 
EN 45   EN Free movement  
Free movement is the one area, where the respondents expect more from the European Union 
than from Member States or local authoritie s. Highest rating (85% of "clearly" or "very 
much" in terms of improvement expected) is give n to mutual recognition of disability status 
across the Member States. Harmoni sation of criteria used by the Member States to assess the 
degree of disability  is supported by 80% of resp ondents. Similar disabil ity related benefits and 
the portability of such benef its were given respectively 77% and 78% of high and very high 
helpfulness ratings.  
Independent living  
In the area of independent living, avoiding placem ent in residential institutions was at the top 
of the respondents' agenda. Out of the measures  to avoid this, 90% approval rating was given 
to measures directed at increasing provision of community-based services and increasing 
access to assistive technologies that can s upport the disabled to live independently. 
Supporting families and other informal carers en joyed 80% level of support. On the other 
hand, planning for closing down the existing reside ntial institutions received relatively little 
support – only 49% of respondents felt that it would "clearly" or "very much" improve the 
ability of persons with disabilities to live independently. Awareness-raising received 85% 
approval, minimum quality standards for care se rvices was supported by 80%. Provision of 
personal budgets and retraining the staff from institutions appeared helpful to respectively 75% and 74% of the respondents. In addition to supporting personal budgets and retraining 
the staff from institutions, some respondents ma de separate written co mments highlighting the 
central role played in empowerme nt of persons with disabiliti es by the provision of personal 
assistants as well as the need to secure ad equate working conditions  for the assistants. 
Participation in political life  
Accessibility was high in the wish-list for the pa rticipation in political life: 89% of responses 
supported making elections and voting (including th e related materials) fully accessible. In a 
separate question, 88% support was given to pr oviding policy-related material in accessible 
formats. Media action to improve the image of persons with disabilitie s received 84% ratings 
"useful" and ""very useful" and fi nancing the disability NGOs 81%. 
Recreation and leisure  
Accessibility was again highly rated in the area of recreation and leisure: ensuring 
accessibility of both cultural venues (including m onuments and sites) and sports facilities 
received 92% support. Accessible formats for cultural material and programmes were seen as 
useful or very useful by 87% of the respond ents. Training sports staff and ensuring the 
funding to address disability i ssues in sports received the approval of respectively 88% and 
84%. Support for the creative activities for persons w ith disabilities was seen  as useful or very 
useful also by a high pro portion of respondents - 80%. 
Standards of living  
The responses in the thematic area addressing  standards of living st and out by their high 
.convergence levels. 90% approval ratings of  compensating for extra costs and burdens 
caused by disability and expanding job opportuniti es are not very far from the 82% rating 
given to measuring the situation of persons with  disabilities while gathering data on the most 
 
EN 46   EN vulnerable groups. Also, the rating of 86% given to  providing adequate disability pensions is 
very close to 85% for expa nding public housing opportunities. 
In the area of freedom and dignity, practical to ols and actions received relatively more support 
than legislative measures. Nevertheless, supp ort levels of 81% and 86% for legislative 
measures concerning respectively decision-maki ng and preventing violence as well as legal 
monitoring are by no means low.  Legislation to ensure the legal capacity of persons with 
disabilities received the same support as most practical measures – 88%. 
Practical measures in decision-making and aw areness-raising were supported or strongly 
supported by 88% of respondents, the most s upported measure was deve loping practical tools 
to prevent violence against persons with disabilities with 89% support. 
6. Governance issues 
The public consultation confirmed th at assigning clear po litical responsibility for disability at 
all governance levels is consider ed important (or very important) by 92% of responses given. 
Along the same lines, 83% of respondents favour ed identification of  a lead office for 
disability issues.  
Developing communication and cooperation m echanisms between different actors (EU, 
national and local governments, civil society) re mains a challenge, but a challenge that must 
be tackled - 87% of resp ondents agreed it was important or very important. 
Assessing the impact of new policies (in all sectors) on persons with disabilities was 
important or very important for 87% of responde nts. As to how to do this best - 78% of 
respondents considered establishi ng indicators and targets to measure improvements in the 
situation of persons w ith disabilities important  or very important. 
7. The role of the European Union 
In each thematic section respondents indicated,  which actors should be involved to what 
extent. The choices were European Union, Na tional Government, Regi onal/local Government, 
Disability NGOs, Industry and Other. The lowe st share of respondents who wanted EU to do 
more or much more, was evident in the area of recreation and leisure - 74 %. At the same time, 
doing more or much more was favoured by 86% of the responden ts in the area of 
accessibility. High on the list of areas, where the EU should engage more actively, were also: 
freedom and dignity (86%), free movement (84 %), independent living and participation in 
democratic and public life (both 83%). Even the items lower on the list also enjoyed a high level of support for more EU engagement: 80% for employment and education, 78% for 
standards of living a nd 75% in healthcare. 
EU should be involved 
 more or 
much more in the area of less or  
much less 
86% Accessibility 2% 
86% Freedom and dignity 2% 
84% Free movement 1% 
83% Independent living 2% 
83% Participation in demo cratic and public life 2% 
80% Employment 3% 
80% Education 2% 
 
EN 47   EN 78% Standards of living and social protection 3% 
75% Healthcare 2% 
74% Culture, recreation, leisure, sport 3% 
 
The table shows that there was very  little call for the EU to do less  in any of the areas and that 
the differences in percentages to do more are small between the areas. . 
In the special section devoted to the role of the EU, the respondents were asked to rate the 
suitability of a variety of instruments the EU could use. All proposed instruments received at 
least 76% of "suitable" or "very suitable" ratin gs, with targets and indicators being the least 
favoured and ensuring disability-friendly public  purchasing the most supported with 92%. 
Legislation to harmonise disabi lity-related objectives across Member States enjoyed 79% 
support, whereas financial support for local project s and research received  "suitable" or "very 
suitable" from respectively 84% and 82% of  respondents. Financing NGOs enjoyed the 
support of 81% of responding organisations an d 77% of all respondent s. 86% of respondents 
regarded helping the MS to exchange informa tion and best practice as  "suitable" or "very 
suitable" role for the EU, information campaigns reached 80% level of support. 
On a more general level, 75% of respondent s considered mainstreaming alone to be 
insufficient to address the problems faced by th e persons with disabil ities. 66% of respondents 
supported addressing disability issues with a combination of mainstreaming and specific 
policies. 
Legislation to harmonise disabi lity-related objectives across Member States enjoyed 79% 
support; helping the MS to exchange information a nd best practice seen as "suitable" or "very 
suitable" by 86% of respondents. Featured in two different sections, targets and indicators 
were found "suitable" or "very suita ble" by 76% or 78% of respondents. 
8. The role of the Member States  
The lowest share of respondents who wanted MS to  do more or much more, was in the area of 
free movement –, but even there the percentage was still 81%. Accessibility issues received 
the highest percentage with 93%  of responses seeing a need for the MS to do more or much 
more. Standards of living/social  protection and employment as  well as independent living 
(91%), also freedom of dignity (90%) were among the areas, with the highest shares of 
respondents wanting to see additional effort  by the Member States, followed by 89% in 
education and participation in democratic and public life, 88% in cu lture and recreation and 
87% in healthcare. 
 MS should do more or much more 
93% Accessibility 
91% Standards of living and social protection 
91% Employment 
91% Independent living 
90% Freedom and dignity 
89% Education 
89% Participation in democratic and public life 
88% Culture, recreation, leisure, sport 
87% Healthcare 
81% Free movement 
 
EN 48   EN  
Overall, the respondents laid most responsibilit y for thematic areas with the Member States, 
followed by the local or regional governments and the European Union but differences are 
small. In this sense, the table depicting th e distribution of the answers in the area of 
accessibility is rather representative. Main exception was the area of free movement, where the EU is expected to take most responsibility. 
Accessibility: who should do more or much more
86,00%92,80%91,40%
71,70%88,40%
26,50%
European Union National government Regional/local
governmentNGOs, including disability
NGOsPrivate sector Other
 
Free movement: who should do more or much more
84,2%
81,2%
63,1%
60,8%
55,9%
7,2%
European Union National government Regional/local
governmentNGOs, including disability
NGOsPrivate sector Other
 
9. Any other remarks 
 
EN 49   EN In addition to replying to the questionnaire, severa l organisations sent detailed proposals, with 
recommendations for the new Disability Stra tegy. Many respondents also used the free text 
field in the questionnaire to add further rema rks. Among the suggestions made, some of the 
most prominent were:  
• Providing a comprehensive legal framework whic h is clear and binding for all involved 
parties. In particular, a horizontal Direct ive aimed at achieving equal treatment and non 
discrimination for persons with disabiliti es in design, manufactur ing and provision of 
goods and services, was mentioned. 
• The implementation of the UN Convention should be  stated as priority in the new strategy.  
• Development of specific action plans to address particular situations: health inequalities, 
de-institutionalization, employ ment of people with disa bilities; people with high 
dependency needs. 
• Introduction of the quota system for employing persons with disabil ities in the public 
service in the whole EU as an encouragement for private sector. 
• Establishing indicators and targets. 
• Mainstreaming of disability in  EU programmes for financial support such as the European 
Structural Funds or in program mes for development cooperation.  
• Using public procurement as leverage to achieve  the inclusion of accessibility features in 
the design and manufacturing in the EU. 
Among the submissions, there was support for the following actions of the Commission: 
mainstreaming, particularly in the assessmen t and evaluation of policy-making as well as 
research; awareness-raising; more deta iled and segmented collection of data. 
A specific proposal for a Disabili ty Pact was made by the Europ ean Disability Forum. Their 
document contains comprehensive and detailed recommendations for the EU to remodel its 
handling of disability issues, including the gove rnance aspects. Several free-form submissions 
referred to this Pact proposal or reflected its individual recommendations. 
11. Tables relating to thematic areas 
"effective" 
or "very 
effective" Developing legislation to ensure accessibility of 
71% the built environment 
69% transport 
66% Internet and communication technologies 
59% other goods and services 
 
"effective" 
or "very effective" Measuring accessibility of 
60% the built environment 
59% transport 
 
EN 50   EN 58% Internet and communication technologies 
55% other goods and services 
 
"effective" 
or "very 
effective" Developing guidelines and standards to promote 
accessibility of 
58% Internet and communication technologies 
57% transport 
55% the built environment 
49% other goods and services 
 
"effective" or "very 
effective" Funding for research on accessibility of 
56% Internet and communication technologies 
52% transport 
51% the built environment 
51% other goods and services 
 
"effective" 
or "very 
effective" Accessibility – other measures 
78% Greater involvement of persons  with disabilities in developing 
accessibility standards 
75% Increasing availability of  assistive technologies 
75% Regular checks of accessibility of goods and services 
69% Increasing use of "universal design" or "design for all" 
68% Supporting the development of the assistive devices industry 
65% Providing know-how to support application of the "reasonable 
accommodation" principle 
 
 "useful" 
or "very 
useful" Employment – usefulness to persons with disabilities in 
seeking employment 
88% Providing assistive technologies 
87% Increasing accessibility of workplaces 
86% Fighting discrimination related to recruitment, employment and 
career advancement 
86% Raising awareness of the potential of persons with disabilities 
among employers 
86% Better accessibility of standard te chnologies and digital content 
83% More and better labour market support services 
82% Enforcing the obligation to make reasonable accommodation for 
disabled persons at the workplace 
77% Reducing financial risks for persons  with disabilities entering or 
leaving the labour market 
 
EN 51   EN 77% Providing training to job- seekers with disabilities 
74% Promoting opportunities for self-employment 
 
"clearly" 
or "very 
much"  Education - expected improvement equal opportunities for 
Persons with disabilities 
90% Increasing the availability of access ible learning material, including 
electronic material and assistive technologies 
89% Increasing the accessibility of educational buildings 
88% Awareness-raising activities in t he general education system to 
increase social acceptance and understanding of the needs of 
persons with disabilities 
86% Providing specific training for teachers to accommodate students 
with disabilities in their classrooms 
84% Increasing human and financial resources to bring students with 
disabilities into the general and higher education system 
83% Facilitating mechanisms fo r students with disabilities to move from 
special to general education 
82% Adapting adult education and training programmes to the needs of 
persons with disabilities 
73% Providing scholarships and grant s for persons with disabilities 
 
 
EN 52   EN  
"clearly" 
or "very 
much" Healthcare - expected improvement in equal opportunities for 
persons with disabilities 
86% Prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities in the 
provision of health insurance 
83% Providing training for health professionals on health needs of 
persons with disabilities 
76% Developing more health services for special needs of persons with 
disabilities 
64% Preventive action to reduce t he incidence of disabilities 
 
"clearly" 
or "very 
much" Free movement – degree of helpfulness in ensuring persons 
with disabilities enjoy the right to free movement 
85% Mutual recognition of disability st atus across the Member States 
80% Harmonisation of criteria used by the Member States to assess the 
degree of disability 
78% Portability of disability-related benefits and services when moving 
to another Member State 
77% Work towards similar disability related benefits across the Member 
States 
 
 "clearly" 
or "very 
much" Independent living – expected contribution to increasing the 
ability of the disabled to live independently 
90% Avoiding the placement of persons with disabilities in residential 
institutions by increasing provis ion of community-based services 
90% Avoiding the placement of persons with disabilities in residential 
institutions by increasing access to  assistive technologies that can 
support the disabled to live independently 
85% Awareness-raising activities to make the right of people with 
disabilities to live in the comm unity more socially acceptable 
80% Avoiding the placement of persons with disabilities in residential 
institutions by supporting fam ilies and other informal carers 
80% Setting minimum quality standards for care services 
75% Providing persons with dis abilities with personal budgets 
74% Retraining and requalification of staff working in institutions to 
provide them with skills for community-based care 
49% Developing action plans to close down residential institutions 
 
 
EN 53   EN  
 "useful" 
or "very 
useful" Usefulness in enabling persons with disabilities to participate 
in democratic and public life 
89% Ensuring that elections and voting, including related material, are 
fully accessible 
88% Providing policy-related inform ation in accessible formats 
84% Media action to improve the image of persons with disabilities 
81% Providing support to disability NGOs 
 
 "useful" 
or "very useful" Recreation and leisure - usefulness in enabling persons with 
disabilities participation 
92% Ensuring that cultural venues and monuments and sites of cultural 
value are accessible 
92% Ensuring that sports-related  facilities are accessible 
88% Ensuring that sports staff concern ed are trained in disability issues 
87% Providing cultural material and pr ogrammes in accessible formats 
84% Providing funding to address di sability issues in sports 
80% Supporting the development of creativ e activities for persons with 
disabilities 
 
 "useful" 
or "very 
useful" Usefulness in ensuring persons  with disabilities enjoy an 
adequate standard of living and social protection 
90% Compensating for extr a costs and burdens ca used by disability in 
everyday life 
90% Expanding job opportunities 
86% Providing adequate disability pensions 
85% Expanding public housing opportunities for persons with disabilities 
82% Measuring the situation of persons  with disabilities when gathering 
data on the groups most vulnerable to poverty 
 
 
EN 54   EN  
"useful" 
or "very 
useful" Usefulness in guaranteeing freedom and dignity for persons 
with disabilities 
89% Preventing violence, ill-treatment and abuse of persons with 
disabilities by developing practical tools e,g, supporting services, 
training for families and formal carers 
88% Developing legislation to ensure persons with disabilities have full 
legal capacity 
88% Raising awareness of the situati on of persons with disabilities 
88% Supporting people with disabilitie s in decision-making e,g, in 
financial transactions and medical treatment options by developing 
practical tools 
86% Preventing violence, ill-treatment and abuse of persons with 
disabilities by developing legi slation e,g, criminal law 
86% Monitoring relevant legal practice in the Member States 
81% Supporting people with disabilitie s in decision-making e,g, in 
financial transactions and medical treatment options by developing 
legislation 
 
 
EN 55   EN ANNEX 2 – TABLE WITH KEY INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNCRPD   
Objective 
The information available shows that persons with disabilities  are at a disadvantage when 
compared with other citizens in terms of access and participation.  
There is a need to develop a framework desc ribing the policy and lega l situation across the 
EU in the light of the commi tments undertaken for the implementation of the UN Convention. 
Therefore an on-line table on the European Commission webpage will provide information on policies, practical measures and legal acts that are needed to achieve the effective 
implementation of the UN Convention. The ta ble will be accompanied by an accessible on-
line tool that will permit stakeholders' organisations to comment on the stage of implementation as identified users. 
The preliminary list of elements below is not exhaustive but aims to cover the key instruments 
that are necessary to bring about the needed ch anges in society to provide the required equal 
access to the key rights and freedoms mentioned in the Convention. 
The table will contain an entry or "cell" for: – each MS and the EU 
– each policy or legal instrument 
Each cell will contain a web lin k to the reference document or to a web page containing the 
relevant information that describe s the instrument and its operation. 
A first list of instruments and related links will be collected by ANED (European Academic 
Network of Disability experts) . Members of the Disability High Level Group will be invited 
to revise those links, where available. The tabl e can be updated regularly and at least once a 
year a snapshot can be made , for instance to accompany the implementation progress report 
from the Disability High Level Group fo r the informal ministerial meeting.  
In this way, with relatively little effort and based on already existing information it will be 
possible to collect much of the information needed to complete the table. In parallel, work on the collection of the key statistics and quantitative indicators will continue. 
Preliminary list of instruments 
I. UN Convention status 
• Ratification or conclusion of the UN C onvention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities: Setting up governance (foc us point, coordination mechanism, 
independent mechanism, involve civil society in monitoring) 
Art. 33 of the UNCRPD and Parts A.3.c & D. Ar t.33& A.5.3.b of the Guidelines on the treaty-
specific document to be submitted to the Committee 
• Ratification or Accession to the Optional Protocol 
 
EN 56   EN A.12 of the Guidelines on the treaty-speci fic document to be s ubmitted to the Committee 
II. General Legal Framework 
• Antidiscrimination legislation157  
Art 4.1 and 6 of the UNCRPD and Parts A .2.1, A.4.2., A.5.4., A.5.5., B.4., B.5., B.7., C. - Art.5 
of the  Guidelines on the treaty-specific docum ent to be submitted to the Committee 
• Legislation recognising le gal capacity of persons with disabilities 
Art 13.1 of the UNCRPD and C. Art.13.1. & Art.13.3. of the Guidelines on the treaty-specific 
document to be submitt ed to the Committee 
• Legislation to ensure accessibility to  voting and elections by Persons with 
Disabilities  
Art 29.a.i and art. 29.a.ii of the UNCRPD158 and A.5.c. and art.29 of the Guidelines on the 
treaty-specific document to be  submitted to the Committee 
• Official recognition of sign language  
Art 21.5 of the Guidelines on the treaty-specific  document to be submitted to the Committee 
III. Accessibility and Assistive Technology 
• Accessibility legislation and standards159 
a. Transport - Art. 9.1 of the UNCRPD. 
b. Physical environment - Ar t 9.1.a, 9.2.d, 9.2.e of the UNCRPD 
c. ICT including the web - Art 9.2.d, Art 9.2.e of the UNCRPD 
More details on accessibility instruments can be found in A.3.2.g, A.5.3.c, C.-Art 9, C.Art.21 
of the Guidelines on the treaty-specific document to be submit ted to the Committee 
• Programmes for ensuring availabil ity of Assistive Technologies - 
Art 4.g of the UNCRPD and C. - Art.9.1. and Art.26.4. of the Guidelines on the treaty-specific 
document to be submitt ed to the Committee 
IV. Instruments for independent living 
                                                 
157 Specific measures or legislation should also en sure that women and children with disabilities are 
protected from discrimination (Art. 6 of UNCRPD). 
158 Art. 29.a.i. addresses accessible voting procedures an d art.29.a.ii the protection of privacy of the vote 
159 Accessibility is a cross-cutting principle touchi ng upon several areas of the UNCRPD. As such, 
accessibility should be promoted in rela tion to Articles 4.1.a, 4. 1.b, 4.1.f, 4.1.g, 4.1. h, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 
14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 , 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30. 
 
EN 57   EN • Programmes and plans for the transition fr om institutions to community based 
services: no obligation to live in a particular living arrangement  
Art 19a of the UNCRPD and art.19 of the Guide lines on the treaty-speci fic document to be 
submitted to the Committee 
• Programmes for quality of social services for persons with disabilities 
Art.25.e and art. 28 of the UNCRPD160 and C. - Art.16.2. and art.25.2, 25.3., 25.6, 28.2., 
28.3. of the Guidelines on the treaty-specific  document to be subm itted to the Committee 
• Availability of disability pensions  
Art 28 of the UNCRPD and C. –Art.28.2 & Art.28.4. of the Guidelines on the treaty-specific 
document to be submitt ed to the Committee 
V. Collection of data 
• Programmes on research and development on disability matters  
Art 4.1.g and C. art. 9.1. and E. Art.31.1. & art.31.3. of the Guidelines on the treaty-specific 
document to be submitt ed to the Committee 
• Programmes on the collection of statistics  
Art 31 of UNCRPD and A.3.h and E. art 31 of the Guidelines on the treaty-specific document 
to be submitted to the Committee 
VI. Education and employment 
• Policy and laws for inclusive education  
Art 24 of the UNCRPD161 and C. Art.24 of the Guidelines on the treaty-speci fic document to 
be submitted to the Committee 
• Employment support programmes  
Art 27 of the UNCRPD162 and C. Art.27 of the Guidelines on the treaty-speci fic document to 
be submitted to the Committee 
VII. Training professionals 
                                                 
160 Ensure access of persons with  disabilities to adequate hea lth and life insurance (Art 25 e of the 
UNCRPD) and social protection (Art. 28). 
161 Legislation should be provided to ensure that children with disabilities are not excluded from 
compulsory primary education or s econdary education on the basis of disability and that they receive 
the required support. Measures to facilitate learning  of sign language and/or Braille should also be 
undertaken. 
162 Legislation should be provided to ensure that children with disabilities are not excluded from 
compulsory primary education or s econdary education on the basis of disability and that they receive 
the required support. Measures to facilitate learning  of sign language and/or Braille should also be 
undertaken. 
 
EN 58   EN • Availability of training programmes on di sability and accessibility matters for: 
a. Lawyers –  
Art 13 of the UNCRPD163 and C. Art 13.2. of the  Guidelines on the treaty-specific document 
to be submitted to the Committee  
b. Doctors  
Art 25.d of the UNCRPD164 and C. art. 25.5. of the Guidelines on the treaty-specific document 
to be submitted to the Committee 
c. Engineers165 
C. Art 20.4 of the Guidelines of reporting of the UNCRPD 
d. Teachers  
Art 24.4 of the UNCRPD166 and C. Art-24.8. of the Guidelines on the treaty-specific document 
to be submitted to the Committee 
VIII. Awareness raising a nd external development 
• Inclusive development aid programmes with clear reference to disability matters 
A.8. and C. Art. 11 of the Guidelines on the tr eaty-specific document to  be submitted to the 
Committee 
• Awareness raising programmes 
Art. 8 of the UNCRPD167 and C. – art. 8 of the Guidelines  on the treaty-specific document to 
be submitted to the Committee 
                                                 
163 Measures should be undertaken to insure that increasingly more persons working in the field of 
administration of justice, police and prison staff are qualified in sign language and/or Braille and are 
trained on disability and accessib ility (Art. 13.2 of the UNCRPD). 
164 Measures should be undertaken to  insure that increasingly more health professionals are qualified in 
sign language and/or Braille and are trained on disability and accessibility (A rt. 25.d of the UNCRPD). 
165 Encourage production of mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies. 
166 Measures should be undertaken to insure that increasingly more teach ers are qualified in sign language 
and/or Braille and are trained on disability  and accessibility (Art. 25.d of the UNCRPD). 
167 Art. 8 referring to Launching campaigns for general society within education system and the actions 
undertaken by the media (TV, internet, radio coverage). 
 
EN 59   EN ANNEX 3 – RESULTS OF THE EU DISABILITY ACTION PLAN 2008-2009 
PRIORITY ACTION INSTRUMENTS ACHIEVEMENTS 
1. Fostering accessibility of the labour market 
Exploring flexicurity measures for 
people with disabilities 
 Expert exchanges and thematic peer review 
of practices on flexicurity addressing 
disabled people, to be carried out through 
the Disability High Level Group and the 
Employment Committee. Two peer review took place during 
this period: 
-Peer review on "Vocational 
rehabilitation and income security 
for people with work incapacities 
within the framework of integrated 
Flexicurity approaches" on 15-16 
September 2008 (Mutual Learning programme). 
-Peer review on "Modernising and 
activating measures relating to 
work incapacity" on 4-5 February 
2010 (Peer review programme in 
social protection and social 
inclusion). 
The Commission launched a Study 
on Supported Employment that 
addresses Flexicurity issues. 
Encouraging supported 
employment and helping 
corresponding programmes 
achieve their full potential. High-level expert exchanges within the new 
EU Network of Heads of Public Employment 
Services on accessibility of employment 
services and matching of labour market 
needs with those of disabled persons. 
Commission services discussion paper on 
supported employment reflecting the 
guidelines of the European Employment 
Strategy. This paper will be discussed in the 
Disability High Level Group and submitted to 
the EU Employment Committee. The issue of supported 
employment was discussed within 
the Disability High level group with 
a presentation by the "Union of 
supported Employment". 
The Commission prepared a 
discussion paper on supported 
employment that was presented 
and discussed with the Member 
States in the Disability High level 
group 
The Commission supported an 
expert exchange within the 
Network of Public Employment Services assistants on 15.10.2008 
A European comparative study on 
Supported employment and 
Flexicurity is in progress, to be 
finished early 2011. 
 
Facilitating access to information 
on reasonable accommodation for 
people with disabilities in the 
workplace 
 Analysis of data, facts and success stories 
of companies on the basis of a study under 
the PROGRESS Programme for 2007 with a 
view to identifying models of good practice 
and carrying out of a cost benefit analysis 
(VT/2007/007). Results are expected by the 
end of 2008. The execution of the study 
Providing reasonable 
accommodation for persons with disabilities in the EU – best 
practices and financing 
schemes
 under call for tender 
VT/2007/007 was successfully 
finished.  
 
EN 60   EN The results of the study, including 
the final report, the compendium of 
good practices, have been 
presented in the HLG meeting on 
1-2 April 2009 and in US – EU 
seminar on Employment 5/6 
November 2009 and is available in 
the web. 
 
Providing guidance on the 
incorporation of social criteria into public procurement 
 A guide on the incorporation of social criteria 
into public procurement will be elaborated on the basis of a study. 
 A guide on the social 
considerations in public procurement is at an advanced 
stage of preparation and will soon 
be published.  
Improving the integration of disabled persons in the field of 
education and youth. “Lifelong Learning” and “Youth in action” 
programmes, with a specific priority in 
2008/2009 calls for proposals. In terms of Lifelong Learning 
policies, the Communication on 
Efficiency and Equity (*) urges 
Member States to act upon factors 
that lead to educational 
disadvantages (including disability). 
The recently adopted 
Communication on School 
education (**) underscores the 
need of giving all pupils the 
competences they need for life, 
while providing them with high 
quality education. This involves 
improving support within 
mainstream schooling for students 
with special needs. 
Achievements in 2010:
 
- funding of the 3-year Inclusion 
project, run by 13 Lifelong 
Learning Programme National 
Agencies, to facilitate access to education and training of 
people with fewer opportunities, 
including those with disabilities 
- Grundtvig specific activities: a 
specific workshop on disabilities 
during the Dissemination conference in January 2010 + 
an NA seminar on how 
Grundtvig NAs can ease the 
participation of disadvantaged 
groups to the programme in June 2010 
- The recently created unit, 
inside Education Directorate A, “Equal Opportunities & Equity”, 
which started operation on June 
1
st, 2010, represents a 
significant progress in the 
implementation of community 
policy as regards the 
 
EN 61   EN participation of people with 
disabilities in education and 
training. . Statistical data and information will become 
available for the whole year 
2010 in the second semester.
 
As regards the Youth in Action 
programme and policies, emphasis 
is constantly brought to the better 
inclusion of disadvantaged groups, 
including disabled youth.  
* Efficiency and Equity in European 
education and training systems; 
COM (2006) 481 final, 8.9.2006 
** Improving competences for the 
21st century: An agenda for 
European cooperation on school: 
COM (2008) 425 final, 2.7.2008 
Youth in Action programme -  
figures 2010 (granted projects 
decentralised level): 
- projects with primary theme 
"disability: 271 (8% of total granted 
projects) 
- projects with secondary theme 
"disability": 298 (9% of total granted 
projects) 
- projects aiming at the inclusion of 
young disabled and/or directly 
involving disabled young people:  
a) n. of projects 543 (16% of total 
granted projects) 
b) n. of participants: 14 690  
c) n. of young people with fewer 
opportunities involved (disabled + other): 7 620 
 
 
Using the potential provided by 
Cohesion Policy's integrated 
approach and multi-level 
governance to support the 
business case of disability and 
accessibility for disabled persons 
 Implementation by Member States, regions 
and the wider partnership under the 
Convergence, Regional Competitiveness 
and Employment, and Territorial 
Cooperation operational programmes 
negotiated and decided in 2007 on the basis 
of Council Regulation (EC) 1083/2006, Regulation (EC) 1080/2006 and Regulation 
(EC) 1081/2006 
 Operational Programmes 2007-
2013: Increased attention is 
being paid to improve 
accessibility for disabled persons.  
Some MS have included anti-
discrimination clauses in their Operational Programmes (e.g. 
Poland), other MS have 
accessibility as a horizontal priority (e.g. Bulgaria, Slovenia 
and Austria), while other MS 
have targeted measures for 
 
EN 62   EN persons with disabilities (e.g. 
Lithuania, Bulgaria). 
Member States also aim at a 
better representation of persons 
with disabilities at the 
monitoring committee meetings. 
2. Boosting accessibility of mainstre am goods, services and infrastructures 
Transport systems and services 
Air transport: enforcing the rights 
of disabled persons and persons 
with reduced mobility. Regulation No 1107/2006 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 
concerning the rights of disabled persons 
and persons with reduced mobility when 
travelling by air (OJL204/1 26.07.2006)  
 Periodical meetings and/or 
exchange of views with National 
Enforcement Bodies on the 
enforcement of Regulation No 
1107/2006 have taken place. 
The Commission is monitoring 
complaint handling and acting on 
complaints or request for 
information.   
By end 2010, the Commission will adopt a package of two 
communications on passenger 
rights: 1) a communication on Reg. 
261/2004 on long delays and 
cancellations; 2) an application 
report on Reg. 1107/2006 on 
PRM (passengers with reduced 
mobility)  
Rail transport: enforcing the rights 
of disabled persons and persons 
with reduced mobility. Regulation on rail passengers’ rights and 
obligations  (text agreed by EP and Council, 
publication pending, entry into force 2 years 
after publication). Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of 
the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 23 October 2007 on rail 
passengers’ rights and obligations, 
published in the Offi cial Journal of 
the European Union L315 of 
3.12.2007 eentered into force: 
3.12.2009. As of the entry into 
force all railway undertakings have 
to ensure equal treatment and non-
discrimination against disabled 
persons and persons with reduced 
mobility (PRM). The application of 
the PRM Chapter (assistance to 
access trains and stations) to 
domestic services may be 
postponed by individual MS up to 
15 years. 
During 2009 application was 
prepared, in particular in view of 
Member States' possibilities to 
derogate (regional, urban and 
suburban services) and/or exempt 
for up to 15 years all national rail 
transport from the application of 
one or more chapters of the 
regulation. 
MS/railway undertakings are being 
advised on how to best apply the 
 
EN 63   EN PRM Chapter. 
Regular National Enforcement 
Bodies meetings are taking place 
which include discussions on the 
implementation of the Regulation 
with regards persons with reduced 
mobility including persons with 
disabilities. 
The Passenger Rights Campaign 
for Rail and Aviation Passengers 
has been launched on 29 June 
2010. This campaign has a strong 
focus on the protection of persons 
with reduced mobility and disabled 
passengers. 
Maritime transport: Establishing the rights of disabled persons and 
persons with reduced mobility. Regulation based on articles 71 and 80 of 
the Treaty Commission proposal on the rights 
of passengers when travelling by 
sea and inland waterway … 
COM(2008)816 was adopted 
4.12.2008 
Council position in first reading on 
11 March 2010. 
Opinion of the European 
Parliament in Second Reading on 5 
July 2010. 
Adopted on 11 October 2010; 
publication is pending.  
Bus and coach transport: 
establishing the rights of disabled 
persons and persons with reduced 
mobility. Regulation based on article 71 of the Treaty Commission proposal on the rights 
of passengers in bus and coach 
transport COM(2008)817 was 
adopted 4.12.2008 
Council position in first reading on 
11 March 2010. 
Opinion of the European 
Parliament in Second Reading on 5 
July 2010. 
Conciliation procedure is expected 
during second half of 2010-early 
2011. 
Examining preferential tariff 
schemes in public transport in 
Member States. 
 A study will start in 2008 and results are 
expected in the second half of 2008. A study has been launched in 
2008. The study has confirmed the 
need to act with legal proposals in 
order to hinder commercial 
discrimination of passengers based 
on ticket prices and transport 
conditions which has not yet been 
subject to EU legislation. 
Commission proposals on maritime  
and bus  passenger rights contain 
articles against commercial 
discrimination. 
Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of 
 
EN 64   EN the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 24 September 2008 on 
common rules for the operation of 
air services  in the Community  
During 2009/2010 the Commission 
will examine possible follow-up 
regarding rail  transport where no 
respective provision exists. 
There is no Commission proposal 
for a common free travel pass for 
Old Age Pensioners  or for a 
European Senior Pass . The 
Commission is not aware of 
specific plans to create such a pass 
by Member States or by other 
competent authorities. Any 
preferential tariffs plan that could 
be put in place authorities in 
Member States would have to 
comply with the principle of non-
discrimination on grounds of 
nationality. 
Users 
Protecting vulnerable users  
 To develop European Rights of Energy user: 
it would inter alia address issues relevant for 
people with disabilities  
As a result of new consumer protection measures introduced in 
the Third Energy Package 
(Directives 2009/72/EC and 
2009/73/EC), an obligation for 
Member States was introduced to 
define vulnerable consumers. 
Member States should take the 
necessary measures to protect 
vulnerable customers in the 
context of the in ternal market. 
Such measures may differ 
according to the particular 
circumstances in the Member 
States in question and may 
include specific measures, or 
more general measures taken in 
the social security system. 
Member States need to develop 
definitions of vulnerable 
consumers that may refer to persons with disabilities. However, 
not all disabled persons should be 
treated as vulnerable in energy 
market context (for example, those 
on high incomes). 
 
Researching the empowerment 
and security of people with 
disabilities in a ccess to information 
(urban accessibility for people with 
visual impairment or in 
emergencies; live subtitling for 
people with hearing impairment or 
migrants). Research, user needs analysis, 
development and demonstration of pilot 
projects The results of the VOICE Project 
on subtitling for people with hearing 
impairment and new applications 
for identity controls have been 
presented to and discussed with 
associations of people with 
disabilities, particularly in an 
international congress in 
Vancouver in 2008. 
 
EN 65   EN The SESAMONET RFID and GPS 
based guidance system for visually 
impaired people has been 
demonstrated and the technical 
aspects have been patented by the 
European Commission. 
 
Researching the empowerment 
and security of all passengers, 
including those with disabilities, in 
access to automatic border control systems. Research, user needs analysis, 
development and demonstration of pilot 
projects During 2008-2009, the Commission 
IPSC performed a project that 
analysed the usability of security 
technologies in an airport departure process. Follow on research is 
focusing on the usability of the 
automatic border control systems. 
The first results have been 
presented and discussed with a 
few Associations of people with 
disabilities, particularly EURO-CIU 
European Association of Cochlear 
Implant Users on April 2010. 
ICT 
Increasing support for projects on ICT for ageing and/or disability 
under the 7th Research 
Framework Programme 2007-
2013.  Disability-related research projects launched 
through regular calls for proposals. Call 4 of research under 
Framework programme 7 in the 
Information Society programme 
includes an objective on 
accessibility, and another related 
objective on ICT for ageing. 
Work Programme 2011-12 of 
research framework programme/ 
priority 'cooperation, ICT ' includes 
an objective on ageing and another 
on inclusion/ accessibility . 
New "Ambient Assisted Living" 
European research  programme (on 
ICT for ageing) is on going and is 
also relevant to disability. The 
programme has its 3rd call for 
proposals in 2010  
Calls 2 and 3 of the CIP-ICT Policy 
Support Programme include 
actions on e-accessibility and ICT 
for ageing. Call 4 of the CIP-ICT 
Policy Support Programme in 2010 
includes actions on e-accessibility  
 
Reform of the EU Regulatory 
package governing electronic 
communications (in particular 
articles 7 and 23a of the Universal 
Service Directive-USD); 
 
 Directive 2009/136/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 25 
November 2009 amending 2002/22/EC on 
universal service and user's rights relating to 
electronic communications networks and 
services,  Directive 2002/58/EC concerning 
the processing of personal data and the 
protection of privacy in the electronic 
communications sector and Regulation (EC) 
No 2006/2004 on cooperation between 
national authorities responsible for the The reformed directives were 
adopted end 2009 and should be 
transposed by MS by 25 may 2011. 
The changes introduced will 
improve e-accessibility and 
promote an inclusive information 
society by ensuring that disabled 
users can benefit from the same 
telecommunications services as the 
 
EN 66   EN enforcement of consumer protection laws  
 majority of users.  
The changes strengthen 
considerably the provisions on 
disabled users by placing explicit 
obligation on the MS to take 
specific measures in favour of 
disabled and by bringing terminal 
equipment for users with disabilities 
within the scope of the USD which 
should provide better end-to-end 
solutions (thereby covering a 
legislative gap that existed so far 
between the R&TTE Directive and 
the e-communications framework) 
 
Improving the availability of 
accessibility standardisation  Follow up and support work on standards 
harmonising requirement for accessibility in 
ICT. 
New proposals under the eEurope 
Standardisation Action Plan The plan changed to be called 
2009 ICT Standardisation Work 
programme and contains a chapter 
on eInclusion that call for 
accessibility rela ted work. Various 
standardisation activities relevant 
for person with disabilities are 
being financially supported by the 
Commission. 
Executing standardisation 
mandate 376 on European 
accessibility requirements for 
public procurement of  
products and services in the ICT 
domain  Standards development  Phase 1 of the mandate has been 
successfully completed and reports 
are published in the web of the 
European standardisation 
organisations (ESOs). The ESOs 
have sent a proposal for Phase 2 of 
the Mandate where the standards 
will be developed and is currently 
under evaluation by the Commission. 
 
Policy making: Communication on 
eInclusion strategy preparing for 
i2010 initiative in 2008  
 An eInclusion initiative for 2008 involving 
industry, users and Member States. 
 The Commission developed a 
horizontal approach to e-
Accessibility following consultation 
of all stakeholders (users, business 
and authorities). This approach 
aims to support eAccessibility 
mainstreaming following up the 
2005 eAccessibility Communication 
and to reinforce stakeholder 
cooperation and to increase 
awareness 
A communication "Towards an 
accessible informati on society" /* 
COM/2008/0804 final was 
published together with staff 
working papers adopted in 
December 2008  
Council conclusions on e-
accessibility adopted in March 
2009 
Digital agenda for Europe adopted 
 
EN 67   EN in May 2010; includes actions on e-
accessibility and refers to the UN 
Convention  
 
Working towards a legislative 
initiative for an accessible, barrier-
free information society. Horizontal approach to legislation on e-
Accessibility following consultation of all 
stakeholders (users, business and 
authorities). The Commission has explored 
in 2008 through studies and an 
online consultation issues 
around possible legislation on e-accessibility. It was found that 
certain conditions where not yet 
met for new European legislation, notably the need to 
not interfere with relevant 
legislation already proposed but not yet approved (on electronic 
communications), the fact that 
key reference standards are not yet ready, and that there is not 
sufficient political consensus. 
The Commission adopted a 
communication on e-
accessibility in December 2008 providing suggestions for future 
progress on e-accessibility, 
without excluding the possibility of legislation in future.
  
Ongoing impact assessment on 
future options for EU policy on web 
accessibility 
PUBLIC BUILT ENVIRONEMENT 
Fostering accessibility to the built environment EU standardisation mandate investigating 
possible standards for accessibility 
requirements for the built environment 
suitable for public procurement in agreement 
with the Public Procurement Directives. The Commission issued a Mandate 
to the ESOs in January 2008. The 
Mandate was accepted and the 
secretariat will be done by AENOR. 
A contract has been signed by the 
Commission with the European 
Standardisation organisations to 
provide financial support to execute 
the Mandate that started in 2010. 
BUSINESS CASE 
Using the potential provided by 
Cohesion Policy’s integrated approach and multi-level 
governance to support the 
business case for disability and 
accessibility for disabled persons 
 Implementation by Member States, regions 
and the wider partnership under the Convergence, Regional Competitiveness 
and Employment, and Territorial 
Cooperation operational programmes 
negotiated and decided in 2007 on the basis 
of Council Regulation (EC) 1083/2006, 
Regulation (EC) 1080/2006 and Regulation 
(EC) 1081/2006 Operational Programmes 2007-
2013: Increased attention is 
being paid to improve 
accessibility for disabled 
persons.  Some MS have included anti-
discrimination clauses in their 
OPs (e.g. Poland), other MS have accessibility as a 
horizontal priority (e.g. Bulgaria, 
Slovenia and Austria), while other MS have targeted 
measures for persons with 
disabilities (e.g. Lithuania, Bulgaria). 
 
EN 68   EN  
MS also aim at a better 
representation of persons with disabilities at the monitoring 
committee meetings. 
 
3. Consolidating the EU’s analytical capacity 
Measuring health and disability in 
Europe  
 
 First round of European Health Interview 
Survey (EHIS). It contains 4 survey modules 
with questions referring to background 
variables, health care, health determinants 
and health status. The latter module includes questions on functional limitations. 
Continuation of data collection and 
calculation of the structural indicators for 
disability-free life expectations (DFLE) / 
healthy life expectations (HLY) via the 
Statistics on Income and Living Condition 
(SILC) survey. • A number of MS have started 
the European Health Interview 
Survey EHIS im plementation; 
EHIS data files expected during 
2009/2010 
• First EHIS results 
(dissemination) expected end 
2010/2011 
• Further harmonisation of the 
SILC questions on health that 
includes disability relevance 
(2008 reference year) 
2010: validation of  the data files 
received from some Member 
States 
Measuring the social integration in society of people with disabilities 
 Implementation of survey module on 
European Disability and Social Integration 
(EDSIM), including variables not only on 
functional limitations but also on 
participation and environmental factors. • June 2008: the project 
launched by ESTAT on 
designing the European 
Disability and Social Integration 
EDSIM was completed  
• December 2008: ESTAT signed 
the grant agreement with 10 
countries for translating and 
testing the EDSIM. The outputs 
we received by the end of 2009  
• January 2010: start of the 
ESTAT project on the analysis 
of the EDSIM translations and 
tests and on the revision of the 
EDSIM module 
• January 2010: set up of a Task 
Force on disability statistics 
working towards streamlining 
the EU social surveys covering 
disability issues including 
EDSIM. 
 
Preparing the legal basis for EHIS 
following adoption by the 
European Parliament and Council 
of the Regulation on Community 
Statistics on Public Health and 
Safety at Work. Discussion with Member States to prepare 
the draft of a spec ific implementation 
regulation on health status and 
determinants, including disability issues. 
 • Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 
of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community 
statistics on public health and health and safety at work was 
adopted 16 of December 2008 
and published in the Official 
Journal of the EU 31.12.2008  
 
EN 69   EN The next step is preparing an 
implementing regulation for EHIS. 
Details of data collection and its 
schedule to be discussed with the 
HIS experts in 2010  
Developing indicators and data on 
eAccessibility Benchmarking and various studies on ICT 
for ageing and/or disability to be pursued or 
launched: Measuring eAccessibility in 
Europe, SeniorWatch2, assistive technology 
industry, eAccessibility legislation, etc. 
 3 studies launched in 2010: 
monitoring e-accessibility; 
economics of e-accessibility; 
assistive technologies 
Call for proposals will be launched 
for a study on future challenges of e-accessibility 
Reviewing the literature regarding 
the social situation of informal 
caregivers and care receivers in 
the EU. Among other things, the 
review will address the situation of 
people with disabilities and that of 
their carers. A study will be launched to collect 
information and good practices in the 
Member States and analyse the implications 
at EU level. The study results are expected 
to feed into the European policies related to 
disability and demographic issues A study called Care Provision 
within Families and its Socio-
Economic Impact on Care 
Providers was launched in 2007 
under reference VT/2007/114 
The study has been carried out and 
published on official EU websites 
Launching the European 
Academic Network on Disability  Operational and financial support through 
the call for tender launched under the 
PROGRESS Programme for 2007 (VT/2007/005) with a budget of 
EUR 500 000 per year from 2007 until 2010. 
 The Network was launched in 
January 2008 following a call for 
proposals. During the first year they produced reports on disability 
matters related to employment 
OMC, social inclusion and social 
protection OMC, sources of 
statistics, the legal framework and 
the UN Convention. The Network 
has continued their work till 2010 
producing additional reports that 
are available in the web 
http://www.disability-
europe.net/?jsEnabled=1 
Evaluating the EU Disability Action 
Plan at mid-term  External evaluation of the results of the 
Disability Action Plan and corresponding 
pilot projects.  
 The evaluation study was launched 
through a call for tender under the 
PROGRESS Programme with a 
budget of EUR 200 000 and was 
closed in March 2009. Outcome 
was presented in HLG meeting 
April 2009.  
Recommendations of the 
Evaluation have contributed to 
draw up EU Disability Strategy 
2010-2020 and is published on the 
Commission web site. 
Improving knowledge and analytical competences on rare 
diseases A Commission Communica tion is currently 
foreseen taking action in the field of rare 
diseases. 
A Recommendation and Communication 
were adopted by the Council and the 
Commission 
 The Commission 
Communication 
on rare diseases: Europe's Challenges 
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_th
reats/non_com/rare_10_en.htm
was adopted on 11 November 
2008 and several conferences 
under the French Presidency took 
place. 
 
The Recommendation on rare 
 
EN 70   EN diseases was adopted in June 
2009: 
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU
riServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:151:0
007:0010:EN:PDF  
In May 2010 the Commission 
support the European Conference on rare diseases 
http://ec.europa.eu/health/rare_
diseases/events/index_en.htm  
 
4. Actions towards full enjoyment of fundamental rights 
Supporting the implementation of 
the UN Convention through the 
establishment of a sustainable 
framework for future presidencies 
to strengthen the European 
human rights approach to 
disability. Sustained exchange of information and 
good practises within the EU Disability High 
Level Group. As a result, the EU Disability 
High Level Group will issue regular reports 
on progress made in the implementation of 
the UN Convention to the annual EU 
ministerial disability conferences of EU 
presidencies. The annual HLG Report on the 
implementation of the UN 
Convention was prepared. It can be 
found at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_so
cial/index/7003_en.html  
The Commission organised the 
annual Presidential conference and 
Ministerial meeting on disabilities 
under the Slovenian, and Spanish 
Presidency. Conclusions were 
drafted and can be found in the 
web. Furthermore two Council 
Resolutions were adopted. 
Contributing to the implementation of the provisions of the Convention 
relating to gender and disability 
(notably Article 6) Analysis on the basis of a Commission study 
launched under the PROGRESS 
programme 2007 (VT/2007/006). The study 
assesses the overall situation of women with 
disabilities in the EU and the specific 
obstacles confronting t hem in the light of 
their human rights and fundamental 
freedoms under the UN Convention. A 
report available online: 
http://ec.europa.eu/soci al/BlobServlet?docId
=4363&langId=en . The Commission monitored the 
progress of the study and gave 
logistical support (hosting the 
Expert Committee meeting) and 
technical advice (data sources). 
Final report has been approved 
and is available online at . 
http://ec.europa.eu/ social/BlobServl
et?docId=4363&langId=en . 
Study encompasses extensive and 
useful country profiles and other 
reference : 
http://ec.europa.eu/ social/BlobServl
et?docId=4364&langId=en  
http://ec.europa.eu/ social/BlobServl
et?docId=4365&langId=en  
The results of the study have been 
used to feed into enlargement 
discussions, new disability strategy 
and new gender strategy.  
General public and specialists have 
been able to access the study for 
their data needs. 
Improving the mainstreaming of disability issues in development 
aid.  Exploration of the possi bilities of introducing 
disability as a cross-cutting issue in aid. 
Revised EC Guidance Note on Disability A Study on Disability in EC 
Development Cooperation has 
been launched by DG AIDCO, in 
close coordination with DEV, 
RELEX and EMPL. This study will 
 
EN 71   EN Examining if adjustments are 
needed in the relevant Community 
development cooperation policies 
or if specific action needs to be 
taken under Article 32 of the UN 
Convention relating to 
international cooperation. 
 and Development for EU Delegations and 
Services: 
htpp://ec.europa.eu/dev elopment/ body/publi
cations/docs/Disability_en.pdf 
Dissemination of the results of the 
Commission pilot project on breaking the 
cycle of disability and poverty in developing 
countries, led by the NGO Licht fur die Welt, 
which will conclude in December 2007: 
Disability mainstreaming in developing 
countries: http://www.make-development-
inclusive.org/index.php?wid=1024&spk=en  
 provide a set of recommendations 
on measures to take in order to 
comply with Art. 32 of the UNCPRD 
(on International Cooperation). 
The study will also provide a 
proposal for the revision of the EC 
Guidance Note on Disability and 
Development for EU Delegations 
and Services.  
The study will be finalised by end of 
2010.  
 
The Commission has disseminated 
in various events the results of the 
Pilot Project on "Breaking the cycle 
of disability and poverty in 
developing countries" , including to 
the Network of Disability Contact 
Persons in EU Delegations 
(established in 2009).  
It was decided by DEV top 
management not to go forward with the staff working paper 
Supporting awareness-raising for 
effective implementation of the 
Convention at the various levels of 
governance concerned. Trans-national project with financial support 
from the Commission under the 
PROGRESS programme.  One of the specif ic items in the 
HLG Report on implementation of 
the UN Convention focussed on 
trainings organised in the MS. 
Furthermore the Commission has 
published in 2010 a call for tender 
Training of legal and policy 
practitioners on the UN Convention 
on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities.  
The launched call for tender 
VT/2008/001 – Study on 
challenges and good practices 
in the implementation of the UN 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 
specifically requests the 
contractor to describe various trainings organised in Member 
States, explain the targeted 
groups of such training
 and the 
field covered. All the relevant 
training materials, translated into German, English and 
French should be also made 
available online.
 
Addressing the needs of disabled 
persons in the European 
Institutions. 
 A Commission Communication on diversity 
policy within the Commission services could 
be issued. Its disability aspects would 
elaborate on action to be taken by the 
Commission as an employer to improve the recruitment and working conditions of 
people with disabilities in the Institutions 
including questions related to the 
accessibility of buildings, as well as support 
for staff with disabled family members, A framework contract to carry 
out the works necessary to 
make Commission buildings 
accessible for the disabled people is now in place. 
Commission Services organised a 
discussion meeting with all families 
who have disabled dependents. 
Over 110 people attended. Topics 
 
EN 72   EN Follow up the implement ation of the UN 
Convention on the right s of persons with 
disabilities.  discussed included the European 
schools, the simplification of 
bureaucratic procedures and 
succession rights. A self-help group 
similar to that of the Cancer 
Support Group was created. An 
explanatory booklet on the steps to 
be followed in the event of death of 
the parents of a disabled child will 
be published. 
"In this context the Commission as 
employer continues to reflect on 
the obligations emerging from the 
UN Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities. The 
actions above contribute to 
implement the Convention" 
Within the framework contract, 
adjustment to existing building are 
being carried out in order to comply 
with accessibility standards.  
Like in 2009, HR C1 will organise a 
discussion meeting with all families 
who have disabled dependents. 
The meeting will take place in the 
second half of the year.  
The « Guichet unique» providing 
information for parents with 
disabled children is permanently at 
the disposal of these colleagues.  
Furthermore, two offi cials deal with 
requests for reimbursement of 
costs linked to a disability on the 
basis of the guidelines "supplementary aid for disabled". 
The CPAS (the inter-institutional 
Joint Committee for Social Affairs) 
has now been charged by the 
College of Head of Administration 
to proceed to a screening of the 
Institutions legal and procedural 
framework, in view of ensuring 
complete compliance with the UN 
Convention.  
 
Complementing the Community 
legislative framework of protection 
against discrimination. Proposal for a Directive based on art 13 of 
the Treaty implementing the principle of 
equal treatment outside employment inter 
alia on grounds of disability 
 The Commission adopted on the 
2nd of July 2008 a proposal for a 
Council Directive on implementing 
the principle of equal treatment 
between persons irrespective of 
religion or belief, disability, age or 
sexual orientation. The scope 
covers social protection, including 
social security and healthcare; 
social advantages; education; 
access to and supply of goods and other services which are available 
 
EN 73   EN to the public; including housing.  
Article 4 requests the provision by 
anticipation of the measures 
necessary to enable persons with 
disability to have effective non 
discriminatory access. It also puts 
the obligation to provide 
reasonable accommodation in 
particular cases. 
 
The draft Directive is being 
negotiated in the Council working 
group, which has held several 
meetings on it since July 2008.  
In April 2009, the EP adopted a 
resolution which basically endorses 
the Commission's proposal, while 
suggesting some amendments 
Preparing for the conclusion of the UN Convention on the rights of 
disabled persons. Commission Proposal for a Council Decision 
in early 2008 to allow the European 
Community to conclude the UN Convention. 
 On 29 August 2008, the 
Commission adopted and 
transmitted to the Council and 
the European Parliament two 
proposals (COM (2008) 530 
final): 
-Proposal for a Council 
Decision concerning the 
conclusion (formal confirmation), by the European 
Community, of the United 
Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities; 
- Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the 
conclusion (accession), by the 
European Community, of the Optional Protocol to the United 
Nations Convention on the 
Right of Persons with Disabilities. 
 
The Council adopted the 
Decisions to conclude the 
Convention in November 2009. Deposition of the instrument of 
formal confirmation in the UN is 
pending approval of a Code of Conduct describing 
coordination arrangements 
between the Member States and the Commission.
 
 
 
EN 74   EN  
ANNEX 4 – LIST OF RECENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS  
Documents of European institutions  and international organisations 
– Consolidated Version of the Treaty esta blishing the European Community, OJ C 325 
24.12.2002, http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/d at/12002E/htm/C_2002325EN.003301.html  
– Consolidated versions of the Treaty on Eur opean Union and the Treaty on the functioning 
of the European Union, OJ C 115 9.05.2008, http://register.consilium.eur opa.eu/pdf/en/08/st06/st06655.en08.pdf
 
– Charter of Fundamental Rights of European Union, OJ C 364/01 18.12.2000, 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf  
– Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 Ju ly 2006 laying down general provisions on 
the European Regional Development Fund, th e European Social Fund and the Cohesion 
Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, OJ L 210/25 31.7.2006, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/doc offic/official/regula tion/pdf/2007/general/c
e_1083(2006)_en.pdf  
– Commission Regulation (EC)  No 1566/2001 of 12 July 2001 implementing Council 
Regulation (EC) No 577/98 on the organisation of labour force sample survey in the 
Community concerning the specification of  the 2002 ad hoc module on employment of 
people with disabilities, OJ L 208/16, 1.8.2001, http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2001/l_208/l_20820010801en00160019.pdf  
– Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for 
equal treatment in employment  and occupation, OJ L 303 , 02.12.2000, http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0078:EN:HTML  
– Proposal for a Council Decision concerning th e conclusion, by the European Community, 
of the United Nations Convention on the Righ ts of Persons with Disabilities, COM(2008) 
530 final, Brussels, 29.8.2008, http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSer v.do?uri=SPLIT_COM:2008:0530(01):FIN:EN:PDF  
– Resolution of the Council of the European  Union and the representatives of the 
Governments of the Member States, meeti ng within the Council of 17 March 2008 on the 
situation of persons with disabilitie s in the European Union, OJ C 75/1 , http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:075:0001:0004:EN:PDF  
– Presidency Conclusions following the second in formal ministerial meeting on Disability 
issues. Retrieved from: http://www.mddsz.gov.si/fileadmin/mddsz .gov.si/pageuploads/dokumenti__pdf/ns_invalid
i_sklepi_220508_en.pdf  
– Council Resolution (10173/10) from  8 June 2010, Retrieved from 
http://register.consilium.eur opa.eu/pdf/en/10/st10/st10173.en10.pdf
  
 
EN 75   EN – European Parliament resolution of 24 April 2009 on the conclusion, by the European 
Community, of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 
and the Optional Protocol thereto. Retrieved from 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/ge tDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP //TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-
0334+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN   
– European Parliament resolution of 4 September 2007 on the Single Market Review: 
tackling barriers and inefficiencies thr ough better implementation and enforcement. 
Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-
//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2007-0367+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN   
– Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 'Situation of 
disabled people in the enlarged European  Union: The European Action Plan 2006-2007', 
COM(2005) 604 final, < http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSer v.do?uri=SPLIT_COM:2005:0604(01):FIN:EN:PDF > 
[Accessed: 28/07/2010] 
– Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 'Situation of 
disabled people in the European Union: The European Action Plan 2008-2009', 
COM(2007) 738 final, Brussels 26.11.2007, http://eur--
ex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriS erv.do?uri=COM:2007:0738:FIN:EN:PDF  
– Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, ‘Equal opportunities for people with disa bilities: A European Action Plan’, COM(2003) 650 final, 
Brussels, 30.10.2003, http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=COM:2003:0650:FIN:EN:PDF  
– Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the 
European Economic and Social Committee an d the Committee of th e Regions, ‘Situation 
of people with disabilities in the enlarged  European Union: the European Action Plan 
2006-2007’, COM(2005) 604 final, Brussels, 28.11.2005, http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSer v.do?uri=SPLIT_COM:2005:0604(01):FIN:EN:PDF  
– Communication from the Europ ean Commission to the Europ ean Parliament, the Council, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, ‘Ageing 
well in the Information Society - An i2010 Initiative - Action Plan on Information and Communication Technologies  and Ageing’, COM(2007) 332 final, Brussels, 14.6.2007, 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/L exUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0332:FIN:EN:PDF
 
– Commission Staff Worki ng Document, ‘Evaluation of the Open Method of Coordination 
for Social Protection and Social Inclusion - A synthesis of replies by Member States and 
other actors to an evaluatio n questionnaire on the Open Me thod of Coordination in the 
fields of social inclusion and adequate  and sustainable pensions’, SEC(2006) 345, 
Brussels, 8.3.2006, http://www.lex.unict.it/eurolabor/en/ documentation/com/2006/sec(2006)-345en.pdf
 
– Commission staff Working Do cument - Accompanying document to the Communication 
from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
 
EN 76   EN Economic and Social Committee and the Co mmittee of the Regions, ‘European i2010 
initiative on e-Inclusion "To be part of th e information society” - Executive summary of 
the Impact Assessment’, SEC(2007) 1470, Brussels, 8.11.2007, http://ec.europa.eu/gove rnance/impact/ia_carried _out/docs/ia_2007/sec_2007_1470_en.pdf
 
– Commission staff Working Do cument - Accompanying document to the Communication 
from the Commission to the Council, the Euro pean Parliament, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 'Situation of disabled people in 
the European Union: The European Acti on Plan 2008-2009', SEC(2007) 1548, Brussels, 
26.11.2007, http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/r egdoc/rep/2/2007/EN /2-2007- 1548-EN-1-
0.Pdf  
– European Commission (2008), 'Impact assessm ent - Proposal for a Council Directive on 
implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or 
belief, disability, age or sexual orient ation', 2/07/2008, Comm ission Staff Working 
Document SEC(2008) 2180 & COM(2008) 2180, < http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=SEC:2008:2180:FIN:EN:PDF >  
– Commission Staff Working Docu ment accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on the rights of passengers in bus and coach 
transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperati on between national 
authorities responsible for the enforcement of  consumer protection laws – Summary of the 
Impact Assessment’, http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU riServ.do?uri=SEC:2008:2954:FIN  
– European Commission (2007), ‘Situation of pe ople with disabilities in the European 
Union: the European Action Plan 2008-2009’, retrieved from http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=COM:2007:0738:FIN:EN:PDF  
– European Commission (2007), ‘Situation of pe ople with disabilities in the European 
Union: the European Action Plan 2008-2009 Annexes’, retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/reg doc/rep/2/2007/EN/2 -2007-1548-EN-1-0.Pdf  
– European Commission (2008), ‘Commission St aff Working Document accompanying the 
Proposal for a Council Directive on implementi ng the principle of equal treatment between 
persons irrespective of religion or belief, di sability, age or sexual orientation - Impact 
Assessment’, retrieved from http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=SEC:2008:2180:FIN:EN:PDF  
– European Commission (2008), ‘Commission St aff Working Document accompanying the 
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Pa rliament and of the Council on the rights of 
passengers in bus and coach transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on 
cooperation between national au thorities responsible for th e enforcement of consumer 
protection laws – Summary of the Im pact Assessment’, retrieved from http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=SEC:2008:2954:FIN:EN:PDF  
– European Commission (2001), ‘Attitudes of Eu ropeans to disability: Eurobarometer 54.2’, 
, Europa, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opi nion/archives/ebs/ebs_149_en.pdf  
– European Commission (2007), 'Discriminat ion in the European Union' Special 
Eurobarometer 263, Retrieved from 
 
EN 77   EN http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/eyeq/ uploaded_files/documents/eurobarometer_rep
ort_en.pdf  
– European Commission (2008), Discrimination in the European Union: Perceptions, 
Experiences and Attitudes. Summary of the Special Eurobarometer 296. Retrieved from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/Bl obServlet?docId= 3979&langId=en,  
– European Commission (2009), 'Discrimination in the EU in 2009' Special Eurobarometer 
Report 317, retrieved from <http://ec.europa.eu/public_opi nion/archives/ebs/ebs_317_en.pdf
 
– European Commission (2001), ‘The employment s ituation of people with  disabilities in the 
European Union’, 2001, Europa, http://ec.europa.eu/employment_soc ial/news/2001/dec/2666complete_en.pdf
 
– European Commission (2003) Mid-Term Assessment, Key Action 6: The Ageing 
Population and Disabilities. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/life/docs/k a6_mt_assessment_fullreport_final_en.pdf
 
– European Commission (2008), ‘Employment, Social Affairs, and Equal Opportunities 
Directorate General 2008 Annual Ac tivity Report’, retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/synthesis/aar/d oc/empl_aar.pdf European Commission (2008), 
‘Progress Annual Performance Monito ring Report 2008’, retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet? docId=3658&langId=en European Commission 
(2008), ‘Proposal for a Council Decision con cerning the conclusion, by the European 
Community, of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’, 
retrieved from http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSer v.do?uri=SPLIT_COM:2008:0530(01):FIN:EN:PDF  
– European Commission (2008), ‘The fight agai nst discrimination and the promotion of 
equality: How to measure prog ress done’, retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobS ervlet?docId=2041&langId=en  
– European Commission (2009), ‘Council decide s on the European Community becoming a 
party to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)’, 
retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/social/m ain.jsp?langId=en&catId=429 &newsId=648&furtherNews=yes
  
– European Commission (2009), ‘Ensuring access ibility and non-discrimination of people 
with disabilities: Toolkit for using EU Stru ctural and Cohesion F unds’, retrieved from 
http:// ec.europa.eu/social/BlobS ervlet?docId=2740&langId=en  
– European Commission (2009), ‘Impact Asse ssment Guidelines’, retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/gove rnance/impact/commission_gui delines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf 
European Commission (2009),  
– ‘Information Note to Accompany the Sec ond High Level Group Report on Implementation 
of the UN Convention on the Rights of Peopl e with Disabilities’, retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/Bl obServlet?docId=2873&langId=en   
 
EN 78   EN – European Commission (2009), ‘Report of the Ad Hoc Expert Group on the Transition from 
Institutional to Community-based Care’, retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/social/m ain.jsp?langId=en&catId=89& newsId=614&furtherNews=yes
  
– European Commission (2009), ‘Second High Le vel Group Report on Implementation of 
the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities’, retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/Bl obServlet?docId=2790&langId=en   
– European Commission (2009) ‘Support to nation al activities identify ing good practices in 
combating discrimination and promoting equalit y - Project Descripti ons’, retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobS ervlet?docId=4383&langId=en  
– European Commission, ESF project search engine, 
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_soc ial/emplweb/esf_projects/search.cfm  
– European Commission (2007), Communication from the European Commission to the 
European Parliament, the Council, the Eur opean Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions: European i2010 ini tiative on e-Inclusion "T o be part of the 
information society" - Executive summary of  the Impact Assessment’, retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/gove rnance/impact/ia_carried _out/docs/ia_2007/sec_2007_1470_en.pdf  
– European Commission (2007), ‘Ageing well in the Inform ation Society – an i2010 
Initiative – Action Plan on Information and Communication Technologies and Ageing’, 
retrieved from http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=CELEX:52007DC0332:EN:NOT  
– European Commission, ‘Measur ing Progress in e-Inclusi on – Riga Dashboard 2007’, 2007, 
Europa, http://ec.europa.eu/informati on_society/activities/einclusion /docs/i2010_initia tive/rigadash
board.pdf  
– European Commission, ‘Continuing the Dive rsity Journey: Business Practices, 
Perspectives and Benefits’, Europa, 2008, http://ec.europa.eu/social/Bl obServlet?docId=749&langId=en
 
– European Commission, ‘Employment, Social A ffairs, and Equal Opportunities Directorate 
General 2008 Annual Activ ity Report’, 2008, Europa, 
http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/synthesis/aar/doc/empl_aar.pdf  
– European Commission, ‘Progress Annual Performance Monitoring Report 2008’, 2008, 
Europa, http://ec.europa.eu/social/Bl obServlet?docId=3658&langId=en  
– European Commission, ‘The fight against disc rimination and the promotion of equality: 
How to measure progress done’, 2008, Europa http://ec.europa.eu/social/Bl obServlet?docId=2041&langId=en
 
– European Commission, ‘Community Action Progr amme in the Sphere of Employment and 
Social Solidarity – PROGRESS – Funding Prio rities for 2010 Annua l Plan of Work’ 2008 
– European Commission, ‘Council decides on the European Community becoming a party to 
the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)’, 2009, Europa http://ec.europa.eu/social/m ain.jsp?langId=en&catId=429 &newsId=648&furtherNews=yes
 
 
EN 79   EN – European Commission, ‘Ensuring accessibility  and non-discrimination of people with 
disabilities: Toolkit for using EU Stru ctural and Cohesion Funds’, 2009, Europa, 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/Bl obServlet?docId=2740&langId=en  
– European Commission, ‘Impact Assessmen t Guidelines’, SEC(2009) 92, 2009, Europa, 
http://ec.europa.eu/gove rnance/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf  
– European Commission, ‘Information Note to  Accompany the Second High Level Group 
Report on Implementation of the UN C onvention on the Rights of People with 
Disabilities’, 2009, Europa, http://ec.europa.eu/so cial/BlobServlet?d ocId=2873&langId=en  
– European Commission, ‘Progress Annual Performance Monitoring Report 2009’, 2009, 
Europa, http://ec.europa.eu/social/Bl obServlet?docId=3658&langId=en  
– European Commission, ‘Report of the Ad Hoc Expert Group on the Transition from 
Institutional to Community-b ased Care’, 2009, Europa , 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/m ain.jsp?langId=en&catId=89& newsId=614&furtherNews=yes  
– European Commission, 'First Disability Hi gh Level Group Report On Implementation of 
the UN Convention on the Rights of Pers ons with Disabilities', 2008, Europa, 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/Bl obServlet?docId= 2293&langId=en 
– European Commission, 'Second Disability High  Level Group Report On Implementation 
of the UN Convention on the Rights of Pers ons with Disabilities' , June 2009, Europa, -
<http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobS ervlet?docId=2790&langId=en> 
– European Commission, 'Draft Third Di sability High Level Group Report On 
Implementation of the UN Convention on the Ri ghts of Persons with Disabilities', March 
2010, Europa , http://ec.europa.eu/social/Bl obServlet?docId=5070&langId=en  
– European Commission ‘Support to national activities identifying good practices in 
combating discrimination and promoting equali ty - Project Descriptions’, 2009, Europa , 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/Bl obServlet?docId=4383&langId=en  
– European Commission, ‘Updated Work Pr ogramme 2009 and Work Programme 2010 – 
Cooperation – Theme 3 – ICT – Informati on and Communications Technologies’, 2009, 
Europa, ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/ fp7/ict/docs/ict-wp-2009-10_en.pdf  
– European Commission, ESF proj ect search engine, Europa, 
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_soc ial/emplweb/esf_projects/search.cfm  
– European Commission, ‘Roadmap: Eur opean Disability Strategy 2010-2020’ 
– Europa- Public Health, 5/05/2010, 'Data on the Healthy Life Years in the European Union' , 
< http://ec.europa.eu/health/indicators/ healthy_life_years/data/index_en.htm > 
– Opinion of the European Economic And Soci al Committee on People With Disabilities: 
Employment and Accessibility by Stages for Peop le With Disabilities in the EU. Retrieved 
from http://eescopinions.eesc.europa.eu/viewdoc .aspx?doc=//esppub1/esp_public/ces/soc/soc36
3/en/ces449-2010_ac_en.doc   
 
EN 80   EN – UN Website, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  
http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=259  
– Guidelines on treaty-specific document to be submitted by states parties under article 35, 
paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Rights of  Persons with Disabilities (Note by UN 
Secretary General) Retrieved from: http://www.ohchr.org/Document s/HRBodies/CRPD/CRPD-C-2-3.pdf
  
– UN General Assembly (2009), 'Round Table Pa nellists Underline Decision-making Rights 
of Disabled People'. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/News/Pre ss/docs/2009/hr5000.doc.htm 
– OECD (2007), ‘OECD Health Working Papers No. 26. Trends in severe disability among 
elderly people: Assessing the ev idence in 12 OECD countries and the future implications’, 
retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/8/38343783.pdf
  
– OECD (2009), ‘OECD High-Leve l Forum: Sickness, disabili ty and work: Keeping on 
track in the economic downturn, St ockholm 14-15 May, 2009. Background Paper’, 
retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/15/42699911.pdf   
– OECD (2009), ‘OECD High-Leve l Forum: Sickness, disabili ty and work: Keeping on 
track in the economic downturn, Stockholm 14-15 May, 2009. Issues for Discussion’, 
retrieved from 
http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,3343,en_21571361_42464611_42654102_1_1_1_1,0
0.html  
Other Sources  
– Academic Network of European Disability E xperts (ANED) (2009), ‘A nnotated review of 
European legislation which makes a refe rence to disability’, retrieved from 
http://www.disability-
europe.net/content/pdf/ANED%202008%20t ask%203%20Annotated%2 0review%20of%2
0European%20legislation%20w hich%20makes%20a%20refer ence%20to%20disability.pdf  
– Academic Network of European Disabi lity Experts (ANED)  (2009), ‘European 
comparative data on the situation of people with disabilities: an  annotated review’, 
retrieved from http://www.disability-
europe.net/content/pdf/ANED%20report% 20European%20Comparative%20Data%20on%
20the%20Situation%20of% 20Disabled%20People.pdf  
– Academic Network of European Disabil ity Experts (ANED) (2009), ‘Monitoring the 
Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 
Europe: Principles for the Identification and Use of Indicators’, retrieved from 
http://www.disability-europe.net/content/pdf/ANED%202008% 20Task%205%20Monitoring%20UN%20Conve
ntion%20report%20final%20version.pdf 
– Academic Network of European Disability Experts (ANED) (2009), ‘Synthesis report on 
disability mainstreaming in the 2008-2010 Nationa l Strategy Reports for Social Protection 
and Social Inclusion (NSRs)’, re trieved from http://www.disability-
europe.net/content/pdf/ANED%202008%20NSR% 20disability%20synthesis%20report%2
0SPSI%20-%20311008.pdf 
 
EN 81   EN – Academic Network of European Disability Experts (ANED) (2009), ‘The implementation 
of EU social inclusion and soci al protection strategies in Eur opean countries with reference 
to equality for people with di sabilities’, retrieved from http://www.disability-
europe.net/content/pdf/ANED%20Task%207%20repor t%20Social%20Inclusion%20final%2020-05-09.pdf  
– Academic Network of European Disability Experts (ANED) (2009), ‘The labour market 
situation of people with disabilities in Eu ropean countries and the implementation of 
employment policies: a summary of evidence from country reports an d research studies’, 
retrieved from http://www.disability-europe.net/content/pdf/ANED%20T ask%206%20final%20report%20-
%20final%20versio n%2017-04-09.pdf 
– Applica, CESEP, and European Centre (2007), ‘Compilation of disability statistical data 
coming from the administrative registers of  the Member States’, retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/Bl obServlet?docId=3007&langId=en
 
– Applica, CESEP, and Alphametrics (2007), ‘Men  and women with disa bilities in the EU: 
statistical analysis of the LFS ad hoc module and the EU-SILC’, retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/social/Bl obServlet?docId=3008&langId=en
  
– Blanck, Peter et. al. . (2003), ‘Calibratin g the Impact of the ADA’s Employment 
Provisions’, Stanford Law & Policy Review, 2003, 267-290  
– Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (2009), ‘Behindertenbe richt 2009‘, retrieved 
from http://www.bmas.de/portal/9828/a 125__behindertenbericht__2009.html  
– Business Europe (2007), Response to social partner consultation ‘Discrimination, does it 
matter?’, retrieved from http://www.businesseurope.eu/DocShare NoFrame/docs/14/BMOJHCECFEJJHGEKJJAE
DNNMPDB39DWKGY9LTE4Q/UNIC E/docs/DLS/2007-01441-E.pdf 
– Business Europe (2008), ‘Bus iness Europe Position Paper – Commission Proposal for a 
Directive on “Implementing the Principle of Equal Treatment Between Persons Irrespective of Religion or Belief, Disability, Age, or Sexual Orientation’, retrieved from 
http://www.businesseurope.eu/DocShare NoFrame/docs/13/BMOJHCECFEJJHGEKJJAE
DNNMPDBW9DP6C19LTE4Q/UNICE/docs/DLS/2008-02385-E.pdf 
– Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services ( 2009), ‘Mid-term Evalua tion of the European 
Action Plan 2003-2010 on Equal Opportunities fo r People with Disabilities’, retrieved 
from http://ec.europa.eu/social/Bl obServlet?docId=3784&langId=en
  
– Davidson, C., M., and Santorelli, M,. J., (2009 ), ‘The Impact of Broadband on People with 
Disabilities - A Report to the US Ch amber of Commerce’, retrieved from 
https://www.uschamber.com/assets/env/0912broadband_dis.pdf 
– Dawson, M. (2009), ‘EU law ‘transformed’? Ev aluating accountability a nd subsidiarity in 
the ‘streamlined’ OMC for Social Inclusion and Social Protection’, retrieved from http://eiop.or.at/eio p/index.php/eiop/article /viewFile/2009_008a/115
  
– Department of Health and Human Services, Centres for Disease Control and Prevention 
(US): ‘Disability and Health St ate Charterbook – 2006: Profiles of Health for Adults with 
Disabilities’ retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dh/chartbook/default.htm   
 
EN 82   EN – DREES (2002), ‘Les personnes handicapées vi eillissantes une approche à partir de 
l’enquête HID’, retrieved from http:// www.sante.gouv.fr/drees/etude-resultat/er-
pdf/er204.pdf 
– DREES (2001), Les Aides et les Aidants des Personnes âgées’, 
fromhttp://www.sante.gouv.fr/drees/et ude-resultat/er-pdf/er142.pdf 
– Ecotec, 'Study on the situation of women with  disabilities in light of the UN Convention 
for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities', A Final Report for the DG Employment, Social 
Affairs and Equal Opportunities of the Eu ropean Commission (VC/2007/317), December 
2009 , http://ec.europa.eu/social/B lobServlet?docId=4363&langId=en 
– Empirica and Work Research Centre (2007), ‘Ass essment of the Status of eAccessibility in 
Europe’, retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activ ities/einclusion/docs/meac_study/meac_report
_06_11_final.pdf 
– EPEC (2008), ‘Study on discri mination on grounds of religion and belief, age, disability 
and sexual orientati on outside of employme nt’, retrieved from 
http://www.cosac.eu/en/info/earlywarni ng/anti-dscrimination.pdf/external_study.pdf
 
– Equal Opportunities Review (1997) ‘Implementing the DDA: an EOR survey of 
employers’, Equal Opportunities Review, No.71, pp.20-9  
– European Agency for Development in Speci al Needs Education (2008), ‘Young Voices -
Meeting Diversity in Education European’, summary of presentati on and results of the 
European Hearing of Young People with Sp ecial Education Needs’, retrieved from 
http://www.european-agency.org/publications /ereports/young-voices-m eeting-diversity-in-
education/EPH-EN.pdf 
– European Agency for Development in Speci al Needs Education (2007), ‘Assessment in 
Inclusive Settings – Key Issues for Policy and Practice’, retrieved from http://www.european-agency.org/publications /ereports/assessment-in-inclusive-settings-
key-issues-for-policy-and- practice/Assessment-EN.pdf 
– European Agency for Development in Speci al Needs Education (2006): ‘Special Needs 
Education in Europe (Volume 2) – Provision in Post-Primary  Education’, retrieved from 
http://www.european-agency.org/ publications/ereports/special -needs-education-in-europe-
volume-2/Thematic-EN.pdf 
– European Blind Union (2006), ‘The future of  access to television for blind and partially 
sighted people in Europe’, retrieved from http://www.euroblind.org/fichiersGB/access-
TV.html#exec   
– European Foundation Centre and European Disability Forum (2009): ‘Symposium on the 
legal capacity of persons with disabilities in  light of the UN Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)’, retrieved from www.efc.be/.../Symposium%20on%20the%20legal%20capacity%20Conclusions.doc
  
– European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) 
(2003), ‘Illness, disabili ty and social inclus ion’, retrieved from 
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ pubdocs/2003/35/en/1/ef0335en.pdf 
 
EN 83   EN –  European Foundation for the Improvement  of Living and Working Conditions 
(Eurofound) (2003), ‘Quality of Life  in Europe’, retrieved from 
http://www.eurofound.europa.e u/pubdocs/2004/105/en/1/ef04105en.pdf  
–  European Journal of Health Law 14 (2007) 273-298: SELECTED LEGISLATION AND 
JURISPRUDENCE - UN Convention on the Rights of  Persons with Disabilities European 
Journal of Health Law 14 (2007) 149-163: Th e Rights of People with an Intellectual 
Disability in the Netherlands: From Restri ction to Development European Network of 
Legal Experts in the Non-discrimination fiel d (2009), ‘Disability a nd Non-discrimination 
in the European Union’, retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/social/Bl obServlet?docId=4176&langId=en
:  
– European Platform for Rehabilitation: ‘The importance of social services of general 
interest (SSGI) in modern social policies: The European Commissi on biennial report on 
SSGI – Analysis Paper’, retrieved from http://www.epr.eu/images/EPR/documents/arc hivedocs/2008/biennial _reportonssgi.pdf 
– European Social Survey (2008), Sour ce questionnaire amendement 03 (Round 4, 
2008/2009)’, retrieved from http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/inde x.php?option=com_docma n&task=doc_downloa
d&gid=473&itemid=80  
– European Agency for Development in Special  Needs Education (2006), 'Special Needs 
Education in Europe – Provision in post- primary education' Volume 2, [Online] 
<http://www.european-agency.org/publications/ereports/special-needs-education-in-
europe-volume-2/Thematic-EN.pdf  
– European Union of the Deaf, ‘Status of Sign Language in Europe’, retrieved from 
http://www.eud.eu/EUD_Sign_Language-i-239.html  
– Eurostat (2001), ‘The European Union labour force survey: Methods and definitions 2001’, 
retrieved from http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employmen t/info/data/eu_lfs/LFS_MAIN/Coding%20lists,%
20explanatory%20notes%20and% 20classifications/EU%20L FS%20Methods%20and%20
Definitions%202001.pdf 
– Eurostat (2003), ‘Closing Ceremony of the Eu ropean Year of People with Disabilities: One 
in six of the EU working-age populati on report disability’, retrieved from 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.eu ropa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC /3-05122003-AP/EN/3-05122003-AP-
EN.HTML  
– Eurostat (2007), ‘Data on Healthy Life Years in the European Union’, retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/health/indicators/healt hy_life_years/data/index_e n.htm Eurostat (2008), 
‘EU-SILC Description of target  variables: Cross-sectional a nd longitudinal’, retrieved from 
http://circa.europa.eu/Public /irc/dsis/eusilc/library?l=/g uidelines_questionnaire/operation_
guidelines/silc065_consolidated/_EN_1.0_&a=d  
– Eurostat (2009) ‘’ The EU-27 population c ontinues to grow’, retrieved from 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.eu ropa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/ KS-QA-09-031/EN/KS-QA-09-031-
EN.PDF 
 
EN 84   EN – Eurostat (2010), ‘Lists of Grants  Awarded in 2009’ retrieved from 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.eu ropa.eu/portal/page/portal/grants/ove rview Eurostat, ‘One in six of 
the EU working-age population report disabil ity’, Press release fo r the Closing Ceremony 
of the European Year of People w ith Disabilities, retrieved from 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.eu ropa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC /3-05122003-AP/EN/3-05122003-AP-
EN.HTML  
– Fahey et al., 'Quality of Life – First Europ ean Quality of Life Survey 2003', 2004. 
Eurofound , http://www.eurofound.europa.e u/pubdocs/2004/105/en/1/ef04105en.pdf  
–  Federal Ministry of Economics and T echnology (2004), ‘Economic Impulses of 
Accessible Tourism for All – summary of Results’, retrieved from http://www.bmwi.de/English/Redaktion/Pdf/eco nomic-impulses-of-acc essible-tourism-for-
all-526,property=pdf,bereich=bm wi,sprache=en,rwb=true.pdf 
– Ferri, D. (2009). ‘The European Community  competences to implement the UN CRPD’ 
Gill, John (2009): ‘Assistive Technology and A ccessibility Portals’, prepared for DG 
INFSO European Commission, retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activ ities/einclusion/docs/ worshop_atm/at_markets
_report.pdf 
–  European Blind Union (2006) 'The future of  access to television for blind and partially 
sighted people in Europe' Retrieved from http://www.euroblind.org/fichiersGB/access-
TV.html#exec   
– HM Treasury, Cabinet Office, National Audi t Office, Audit Commission and Office for 
National Statistics (2001), ‘C hoosing the Right Fabric: A Framework for Performance 
Information’ in The Stationary Office a nd HM Treasury, Cabine t Office and National 
Audit Office (2003), Setting Key Targets for Executive Agencies  
– Grammenos, S., 'Illness, Disability and Social Inclusion', 2003, Europa website – 
Eurofound , < http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2003/35/en/1/ef0335en.pdf  
– Hawley, C. (2008), 'Feared cost of Anti- Discrimination Law May Not Exist',8/05/2008, 
Der Spiegel [Online], http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,572290,00.html  
– Human Rights Monitoring Institute  et al (2005) 'Human Right s Monitoring in Residential 
Institutions for Mentally Disabled an d Psychiatric Hospitals' Retrieved from 
http://www.old.gip-vilnius. lt/leidiniai/human_rights_monitoring_report.pdf 
– Hurstfield, Jennifer et. al. (2007 ): ‘The costs and benefits of Independent Living’, report 
for HM Government, Office for Disa bility Issues, retrieved from 
http://www.enil.eu/elib/app/webroot /files/independent_living_report.pdf  
–  Human Rights Council (2009): draft ‘Thematic  study by the Office of the United Nations 
High Commissioner for Human Ri ghts on the structure and role of national mechanisms 
for the implementation and monitoring of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities’ Instituto Naciona l de Estadística Survey on Disability, Personal Autonomy 
and Dependency Situations  2008’ retrieved from 
http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?L=1&type =pcaxis&path=/t15/p418&file=inebase  
 
EN 85   EN – International Longevity Centre-UK and the Merck Company Foundation (2006), ‘The state 
of ageing and health in Europe: Executive Summary’, retrieved from 
http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Im ages/The%20State%20of%20Ageing%20and%
20Health%20in%20Europe%20-%20E xecutive%20Summary_tcm6-15882.pdf 
– Jenkins, S and Rigg, J. (2003), ‘Disability and disadvantage: selecti on onset and duration 
effects’ in Burchardt, T. (2003), ‘Being and becoming: Social exclusion and the onset of 
disability’, retrieved from: http://sticer d.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/CR/CASEreport21.pdf 
– Garces, Jorge et. al. (2007): ‘Free movements and equal opport unities for all (LivingAll)’, 
funded under FP6 International Disability and Development Consortium (2005), 'Disability 
in Conflict and Emergency Situations: Focus on Tsunami Affected Ar eas’ for International 
Disability and Development Consortium, retrieved from http://www.iddcconsortium.net/joomla/image s/IDDC/emergency/kar_tsunami_%20paper_
05.pdf  
–  KMU Forschung Austria (2008) , ‘Providing reasonable acco mmodation for persons with 
disabilities in the workplace in the EU – good practices and financin g schemes’, retrieved 
from http://ec.europa.eu/social/Bl obServlet?docId=1957&langId=en   
– KMU Forschung Austria (2008), ‘Providing re asonable accommodation for persons with 
disabilities in the workplace in the EU – 24 co mpany case studies across Europe’, retrieved 
from http://ec.europa.eu/social/Bl obServlet?docId=1961&langId=en  
– Lafortune et al., 'Trends in Severe Disa bility Among Elderly People: Assessing the 
Evidence in 12 OECD Countries  and the Future Implicatio ns', 30/03/2007, OECD Health 
working papers, OECD website, http://www.oecd.org/da taoecd/13/8/38343783.pdf  
–  LivingAll Free movements and equal opportunitie s for all (LivingAll),  ‘Work package 4: 
Detection of Main Barriers’, retrieved from http://www.livingall.eu/admin/Ficheros/D 4.1%20Report%20presenting%20the%20actual
%20situation%20of%20disabled%2 0people%20in%20Europe..pdf 
– Lyons, Richard (2009), ‘Physical and mental disabilities in ne wborns doubled in 25 years’, 
article in New York Times, retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1983/07/18/us/physical -and-mental-disabil ities-in-newborns-
doubled-in-25-years.html?&pagewanted=1  
– Le Ministère du Travail, des Relations Sociales, de la Famille, de la Solidarité et de la 
Ville (2007), ‘Synthèse sur l’emploi des personnes handicapées‘, retrieved from http://www.travail-
solidarite.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/tdb_th_II_A_Synt hese_sur_l_emploi_des_personnes_handicap
ees-2.pdf  
– Mansell, J. et. al. (2007), ‘Deinstitutionalisation and co mmunity living – outcomes and 
costs: report of a Europ ean Study’, retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/Bl obServlet?docId=2788&langId=en  
– Mowlam, A. et. al. (2007), ‘UK Study of Abus e and Neglect of Older People: Qualitative 
Findings’, retrieved from http://assets.comicrelief.com/cr09/ docs/older_people_abuse_report.pdf 
 
EN 86   EN – My Opinion My Vote (2009), ‘Voting Expe riences among Young People with Learning 
Disabilities’, retrieved from ‘http://www.myopinionmyvote.eu/webdown/res earchpoll/votingexpe riences2009fin.pdf 
– National Council on Disability (200 7), ‘The Impact of the Ameri cans with Disabilities Act: 
Assessing the Progress Toward Achieving the Goals of the ADA’, retrieved from 
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publica tions/2007/pdf/ada_impact_07-26-07.pdf
 
– Needels et. al. (2006) ‘Economic and social cost s and benefits to employers of retaining, 
recruiting and employing disabled people and/or people with health conditions or an injury: a review of the; evid ence (Department for Work and Pensions research report no 
400’, retrieved from http://research.dwp.gov.uk/as d/asd5/rports2005-2006/rrep400.pdf
 
– Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) , US Department of Labour, 'Investing in 
People: Job Accommodation Situati ons and Solutions', [Online] 
http://www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/misc/invest.htm   
– Office for Disability Issues: ‘Disability Equality Indicators’, retrieved from 
http://www.officefordisabili ty.gov.uk/research/indicators.php  
– Office for the United Nations High Commissi oner for Human Rights: ‘International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’, retrieved from 
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm  
– Office for the United Nations High Commissi oner for Human Rights: ‘International 
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’, retrieved from 
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm  
– Priestley, M., 'Synthesis report on disabili ty mainstreaming in the 2008-2010 National 
Strategy Reports for Social Protection a nd Social Inclusion (NSRs)', Oct. 2008, Academic 
Network of European Disability Experts  [Online], < http://www.disability-
europe.net/content/pdf/ANED%202008%20NSR% 20disability%20synthesis%20report%2
0SPSI%20-%20311008.pdf  
– Ramboll Management (2004).‘Evaluation of  the European Year of People with 
Disabilities’. retrieved from http://wwwupload.pls.ramboll .dk/eng/Publications/Evalua tionAndResearch/EYPD_FinalR
eport_Synthesis.pdf 
– Ramboll Management (2008) ‘On-going Evalua tion of the 2007 European Year of Equal 
Opportunities for All’, retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobS ervlet?docId=2144&langId=en  
– ROBOTIKER-TECNALIA, AATE, IBV, and NG4 ALL (2009), ‘Analysing and federating 
the European assistive technology  ICT industry’, retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/new sroom/cf/document.cfm?action=display&doc_
id=606   
– Salvador-Carulla, L. (2009), ‘Bridging knowle dge in long-term care and support. Crossing 
boundaries between ageing and disability’, retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2707536/
  
 
EN 87   EN – Schädler, Johannes et. al. : ‘The specific risks of discriminati on against persons in situation 
of major dependence or with co mplex needs’, retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/Bl obServlet?docId=3009&langId=en   
– Schweizerische Fachstelle für behindertenge rechtes Bauen, ‘Kosten’, retrieved from 
http://www.hindernisfrei-bauen.ch/kosten_d.php  
– Simm, Claire et al (2007), 'Organisations' re sponses to the Disability Discrimination Act', 
Research Report No. 410 for Department  for Work and Pensions, [Online] 
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/ asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep410.pdf  
– SINTEF (2000), ‘De sier du skal ha det tilnærma likt et annet liv, men det det er jo slettes 
ikke det’, retrieved from http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/ dep/ad/dok/nouer/2001/nou-2001-
22/15/2.html?id=144323   
– Social Exclusion Unit (2003), ‘Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and 
Social Exclusion’, retrieved from http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabineto ffice/social_exclusion_t ask_force/assets/p
ublications_1997_to_2006/making_transport_2003  
– Stapleton et. al. (2009), ‘Revie w of international evidence on the cost of disability, 
Department for Work and Pensions’  
– Stein, M. A. (2000), ‘Empirical Implications  of Title I’, 85 Iowa  Law review, 2000. 1672-
1690, p1674  
– Ray et. al. (2003), ‘Measuri ng the Macroeconomic Eff ects of Reducing Benefit 
Dependency’, National Institute Economic Review n186: 85-97  
– UEAPME (2008), ‘UEAPME position paper on th e European Commission proposal for a 
Council Directive on implementing the princi ple of equal treatme nt between persons 
irrespective of religi on or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation COM (2008) 426’. 
retrieved from http://www.ueapme .com/IMG/pdf/081128_pp_non_discrimination.pdf 
– UNICE (2005), ‘UNICE Position on the Eur opean Commission Framework Strategy “Non 
–discrimination and equal opportuniti es for all’. retrieved from 
http://www.businesseurope.eu/DocShare NoFrame/docs/1/BMOJ HCECFEJJHGEKJJAED
NNMPDB19DW3WN9LI71KM/UNI CE/docs/DLS/2005-01716-EN.pdf 
– United Nations, ‘Convention on the rights of pers ons with disabilities ’, retrieved from 
http://www.un.org/disabilities/docum ents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf 
– United Nations Enable, ‘Persons with disabilities and multiple discrimination - Rights of 
special groups’, retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/comp500.htm   
– United Nations Enable, ‘What is disability and who are persons with disabilities’, retrieved 
from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/faqs.htm   
– United Nations General Assembly HR/5000 (2009) : ‘Equal Legal Rights, Access to Justice 
Crucial to Implementation of Disabilities Convention, Say Speakers as Conference of 
States Parties Continues’, press re lease on 3rd meeting, retrieved from 
ttp://www.un.org/News/Press/ docs/2009/hr5000.doc.htm  
 
EN 88   EN – University College Dublin Centre for Disabi lity Studies, ‘Pomona - Health Indicators for 
People with Intellectual Disabilities’, retrieved from http://www.ucd.ie/include/   
– University of Bristol (2005): ‘Tackling attitudes of heal thcare professionals towards 
disabled people’, Press release retrieved from http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2005/810   
– University of York Social Policy Resear ch Unit (2001), ‘Young Disabled People and 
Sport’, retrieved from http://www.yor k.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/rworks/nov2001.pdf 
– Waddington, L & Lawson, A. (2009), 'Disability and non-discrimination law in the 
European Union – An analysis of disabili ty discrimination law within and beyond the 
employment field', July 2009, European Network of Legal E xperts in the Non-
Discrimination Field, < http://www.non-
discrimination.net/content/media/Dis ability%20non-discrimination%20law.pdf >  
– Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), 'Case Study of Accessibility Benefits: Tesco', 
retrieved from http://www.w3.org/WAI/b case/tesco-case-study  
– We Want You – Disability Votes Coun t: ‘Facts and Figures’, retrieved from 
http://www.disabilityvotescount .eu/en/press-facts-figures.php  
– Wheelchair Statistics at Newdisability.com: 
http://www.newdisability.com /wheelchairstatistics.htm