Search results

This article explores the understanding and use of the concept of vulnerability in European Union (EU) law, with a particular focus on the fields of criminal law and consumer protection law. It draws on Fineman's understanding of vulnerability as a universal phenomenon, and considers the scope for, and policy implications of, incorporating (further) such an approach within these fields of law. The article reveals that there is no common understanding of the concept of vulnerability in the fields of EU criminal law and consumer protection law, and there is a lack of overall coherence across these two fields of law. In fact, a common understanding is not even necessarily found within single fields. The purposes served by highlighting"vulnerable"groups and individuals in legislation differs, and references to"vulnerability" result in a stronger focus on the need for individualised assessments, and tailored measures, in EU criminal law than is the case for EU consumer protection law. Indeed, the provisions addressing "vulnerable" consumers are particularly brief and provide very little extra protection. However, both fields of EU law also reveal evidence of a universal approach to vulnerability being taken with regard to communication and information provision, which should be tailored to individual needs and abilities.

The report provides a disability perspective on the European Pillar of Social Rights. Taking the Social Pillar principles as a starting point, it advocates for a strong disability mainstreaming approach throughout the developing policy framework. The full participation and equality of people with disabilities should not be limited to disability-specific policy proposals but, like gender equality, should be considered in all relevant policies and initiatives of the European Union. This report provides a starting point from which to achieve this within discussions on the Social Pillar. The Social Pillar is an important development for the EU that renews its focus on effective rights for EU citizens. Its three core themes – equal opportunities and access to the labour market, fair working conditions and social protection and inclusion – are all relevant to people with disabilities and each area raises important questions about disability rights. Those rights are established not only by EU law but also in international law under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to which the EU is a party. This report represents a substantial work of synthesis, arising from a European Commission request to the Academic network of European disability experts (ANED) in 2016. It has been produced by the collective effort of more than 40 authors, including country experts, topic experts and thematic rapporteurs. The result is a compendium work of reference that covers all of the 20 principles of the Social Pillar before driving deeper into an analysis of selected themes. Further evidence and examples are provided in individual country reports on these themes, from EU Member States and Associated Countries, which are all published on the ANED website.

This article explores and reviews the approach of the Court of Justice of the EU to defining disability under the Employment Equality Directive and concentrates, in particular, on the two most recent cases which were decided in 2014: Z and Kaltoft and the relevance of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), to which the EU is a party. The article argues that the Court's approach to defining disability, as applied in practice, is not compatible with either the wording or spirit of the CRPD, and there is a real danger that the CJEU's mistaken approach will also trickle down to national courts. This is in spite of the fact that the Court pays lip service to the social contextual model of disability as outlined in the CRPD in its judgments.

The signature and conclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) by the European Community (now European Union) marks a significant step forward in the protection of human rights by the EU. Whilst the EU has become a party to international treaties in the past, this is the first such accession to a human rights treaty. As a consequence, the conclusion of the CRPD by the EU raises many interesting questions, and the path to be followed by the EU in identifying which Convention obligations it is bound by, or should act on, and which obligations fall primarily within the responsibility of the Member States, is, as yet, untrod. This article is a first attempt to examine some of those issues and, specifically, to reflect on what factors will determine whether EU action to implement the Convention would be appropriate in those many areas that fall within the shared competence of the EU and the Member States.