1.1 Fundamental Rights Report 2016 Report 2

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, selection of rights of people with disabilities passages from published reports related to Luxembourg fra.europa.eu

February 2017, Vienna Contents 1 Annual reports 2 1.1 Fundamental Rights Report 2016 Report...... 2 1.2 Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2014 – Annual Report 2014 (June 2015)...... 2 2 Thematic Reports on the rights of persons with disabilities 2 2.1 Violence against children with disabilities: legislation, policies and programmes in the EU report (2015)...... 2 2.2 Implementing the UN CRPD: An overview of legal reforms in EU Member States (2015)...... 4 2.3 The right to political participation for persons with disabilities: human rights indicators (2014)...... 5 2.4 Legal capacity of persons with intellectual disabilities and persons with mental health problems (2013)...... 6 2.5 Involuntary placement and involuntary treatment of persons with mental health problems (2012)...... 7 2.6 The legal protection of persons with mental health problems under non-discrimination law (2011)...... 8 2.7 The right to political participation of persons with mental health problems and persons with intellectual disabilities (2010)...... 8 1 Annual reports

1.1 Fundamental Rights Report 2016 Report For more detailed information: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications-and- resources/publications/annual-reports/fundamental-rights-2016 “ The proposed draft bill on accessibility prepared by the Luxembourg Ministry of Family Affairs, Integration and the Greater Region is broader in scope. Incorporating ‘design for all’ principles, the draft bill, which is scheduled to be introduced in 2016, aims to ensure equal opportunities for persons with disabilities in all areas of life. In light of its wide application, preparation of the draft bill involves cooperation with diverse stakeholders, including civil society organisations, the National Competence Centre for Accessibility to Buildings, and professional groups.”(p.192) 1.2 Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements in 2014 – Annual Report 2014 (June 2015) For more detailed information http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications-and- resources/publications/annual-reports/fundamental-rights-2014. “Concerning the third conditionality, some Member States have consulted or plan to consult with bodies in charge of protection of rights of persons with disabilities or disabled persons organisations (DPOs). This was the case in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden.” (p.31) “For the fourth conditionality, Member States took steps to ensure that relevant staff will be trained on applicable EU and national disability law and policy, including accessibility and the implementation of the CRPD. This happened in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Spain.”(p.31)

2 Thematic Reports on the rights of persons with disabilities

2.1 Violence against children with disabilities: legislation, policies and programmes in the EU report (2015)

The report includes extensive information regarding Luxembourg, these excerpts are just a selection. For more detailed information: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/children-disabilities-violence . Also available in easy-to-read: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/violence-against-children- disabilities.

2 (p.26)

(p27) “Only 15 of the 25 Member States who have such a reporting obligation impose it on all professionals (Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom). In the

3 remaining Member States, existing obligations only address certain professional groups, such as social workers or teachers.” (p.40) Table 3: Examples of awareness-raising programmes, projects and campaigns Name of programme Description Reference and link National Action Plan Following ratification of the Luxembourg, in favour of persons CRPD, the government of Government (2012), with disabilities Luxembourg in 2012 issued an National Action plan action plan containing in favour of persons awareness-raising measures to with disabilities (Plan encourage the general public d’Action de mise en to be more tolerant and oeuvre de la CRDPH respectful towards people with du Gouvernement disabilities. Examples include luxembourgeois) presenting people with disabilities and their lives in a (p.87) less stereotypical manner in the media, and raising awareness among children without disabilities about peers with disabilities.

2.2 Implementing the UN CRPD: An overview of legal reforms in EU Member States (2015) The report includes extensive information regarding Luxembourg, these excerpts are just a selection. For more detailed information: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2015- focus-05-2015-crpd_en.pdf. “Other reforms focus on specific aspects of accessibility identified by Article 9 of the CRPD. Concerning the accessibility of the physical environment, FRA evidence shows that 15 Member States (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom) have mandatory accessibility standards for the construction, and alteration of national and local authority buildings, often in line with EU-level standards.” (p.8) “ Education and formal qualifications open up access to employment and career advancement, crucial factors in promoting a high quality of life and the integration of people with disabilities in society. Many Member States, including Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, France, Latvia, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom are taking steps towards an inclusive education system, reflecting the requirements of Article 24 of the CRPD.” (p.12)

4 2.3 The right to political participation for persons with disabilities: human rights indicators (2014) The report includes extensive information regarding Luxembourg, these excerpts are just a selection. For more detailed information: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/right- political-participation-persons-disabilities-human-rights-indicators.

“National disability strategies or action plans explicitly address political participation in eight EU Member States: Austria, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Latvia, Luxembourg and Spain as well as Slovakia where a draft national disability programme 2014–2017 is being finalised.” (p.39)

“A further 15 EU Member States prohibit people with disabilities who have been deprived of their legal capacity from voting. The Member States are Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia.”(p.41)

“ Ten Member States – Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta and Poland – require non-nationals to register to vote.” (p.42)

“In Ireland, Luxembourg and Poland, however, postal voting is available for persons whose disability or health problem prevents them from getting to a polling station, while proxy voting is a possibility for these individuals in Poland and Sweden.” (p.43)

“ In Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom provisions regarding the voting of persons living in long-term institutions are part of general measures on alternative forms of voting.” (p.44)

“ The FRA’s analysis indicates that 15 EU Member States, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom have mandatory accessibility standards for the construction and alteration of national and local authority buildings.” (p.48)

“ The research indicates that in 12 EU Member States, Croatia, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, have legal accessibility standards which apply to all polling stations.” (p.49)

“ Legislation in the second group of Member States – Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden – requires that a guardian makes a complaint on behalf of a person deprived of legal capacity who is seeking redress.” (p.53)

“ In the remaining 15 EU Member States, the analysis indicates that consultation and involvement of DPOs in the development of laws and policies is not required by law. In 11 of these Member States, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom, however, established mechanisms to ensure systematic consultation with DPOs are in place. The governments of

5 Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Luxembourg and Latvia have established consultative bodies of people with disabilities which include representatives from DPOs.” (p.57)

“ Conversely, in Cyprus and Luxembourg official data indicates that no members of the current national parliaments identify as having a disability.” (p.68)

“ Only four countries reported any direct audio description (Austria, Denmark and Luxembourg, with less than 2 %, and the United Kingdom with 14.6 %), underlining the general lack of audiodescribed programming. Some further data are now available for 12 countries as a result of updates in the MeAC project.” (p.80)

Data from Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland and Slovenia indicate that no political parties produced their manifestos in accessible formats for the last elections. (p.80)

2.4 Legal capacity of persons with intellectual disabilities and persons with mental health problems (2013) The report includes extensive information regarding Luxembourg, these excerpts are just a selection. For more information: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2013/legal-capacity- persons-intellectual-disabilities-and-persons-mental-health-problems. Also available in easy-to-read: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2013/laws-about-being-able-make- important-decisions-yourself. “Systems that use substituted decision-making schemes, or full loss of legal capacity, may term such representation as full guardianship, ‘wardship’ (in Ireland) or ‘tutorship’ (in France and Luxembourg (tutelle) and in Italy (tutore). The term ‘curatorship’ appears to be used in Estonia, France, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain to refer to various systems of partial restriction of legal capacity, and systems under which the legal representative can make legally binding decisions only with the agreement or consent of the person concerned.” (p29) “About half of EU Member States explicitly provide in their national legal frameworks for the person concerned to request a restriction of his or her legal capacity. This is the case in Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.” (p.35) “ In Romania, for example, a person can regain his or her legal capacity only if a court decides that the causes for placing a person under full guardianship no longer exist. This is also the case in, for example, Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden.” (p.38) “FRA research shows that the person under guardianship can appeal the decision affecting his or her legal capacity in many EU Member States, for example Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.”(p.39)

6 2.5 Involuntary placement and involuntary treatment of persons with mental health problems (2012) The report includes extensive information regarding Luxembourg, these excerpts are just a selection. For more information: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/involuntary- placement-and-involuntary-treatment-persons-mental-health-problems “ In the EU27, a majority of EU Member States (19) have specific laws on mental health regulating involuntary placement or involuntary treatment of persons with mental health problems (see Annex 1). […]To take two more recent examples, in 2009 Luxembourg passed legislation in this field.” (p.29-30)

“In 12 Member States, the existence of a significant risk of serious harm to oneself or others and a confirmed mental health problem are the two main conditions justifying involuntary placement. The need for a therapeutic purpose is not explicitly stipulated. This is the case, in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands.” (p.31)

“In Luxembourg, the normal procedure – a placement upon request by a family member or a guardian – simply refers to a notion of ‘danger’ while, in exceptional cases, the placement can take place in situations of ‘imminent danger’.” (p.32)

“ In Luxembourg, the request to have a person admitted should be accompanied by a medical certificate from a physician (médecin) who is not a member of staff of the admitting hospital’s psychiatric ward. In 2009, just before the legislative reform in Luxembourg, the CPT expressed some concerns about the lack of specialisation in psychiatry of the doctor performing the initial assessment.” (p.35)

“ This is the case in Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Poland.” (p.35).

“ In Luxembourg, a specially-appointed judge in the district where the person is located decides on involuntary placement. Each judicial district has a judge who is charged with monitoring the admission of persons to medical care facilities taking decisions related to keeping the persons under observation or releasing them, and who monitors possible future admission or placement. The judge is empowered to request reports from and hear anyone deemed necessary for a sufficiently clear understanding of the situation on which to base the decision.” (p.37)

“ In Luxembourg, patients can appeal their placement at any time by requesting their release before the district court in the area where the establishment is located. Other interested parties can also petition the court for an appeal.” (p.39)

“ In some Member States regular reviews of placement measures take place every three months (Bulgaria, Portugal), every six months (Finland, France, Latvia, Lithuania), after one year (Estonia, Slovenia), or after two years (Belgium, Luxembourg).” (p.42)

7 2.6 The legal protection of persons with mental health problems under non- discrimination law (2011) The report includes extensive information regarding Luxembourg, these excerpts are just a selection. For more detailed information: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2011/legal- protection-persons-mental-health-problems-under-non-discrimination-law. “ Likewise, in Luxembourg the terminology evolved from ‘lunatic’ and ‘insane person’ to ‘person with mental disorders’.” (p21-22) “In another group of Member States where the transposing legislation provides no common understanding of the term disability, definitions can be found in other non-discrimination laws. In general, these definitions can be interpreted so as to include persons with mental health problems. This is the case for Bulgaria, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania and Slovenia.” (p24) “ Similarly, in Luxembourg and Portugal, the scope of the duty to provide reasonable accommodation remains unclear. This is because the legislation providing for reasonable accommodation is not the same as that transposing the Employment Equality Directive, meaning that the scope of protection under the two laws may be different.” (p.26) 2.7 The right to political participation of persons with mental health problems and persons with intellectual disabilities (2010) The report includes extensive information regarding Luxembourg, these excerpts are just a selection. For more detailed information: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2010/right- political-participation-persons-mental-health-problems-and-persons “The Hungarian Constitution provides an explicit exception from the universal right to vote – only persons with full legal capacity can exercise it. Persons placed under full or partial guardianship, even if in an unrelated area (such as parental rights, or consent to medical treatment), are excluded from political participation. Similar constitutional provisions can be found in several countries: the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta or Poland and Portugal, among others.” (p.15)

(p.23)