Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:56:24.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Unorthodox Relationship between the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Secondary Rights in the Court of Justice Case Law on Disability Discrimination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2020

Delia Ferri
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Court of Justice – Discrimination on the basis of disability – Article 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Employment Equality Directive – Relationship between different sources of law protecting the right of persons with disabilities – Charter as interpretative aid – Charter as a parameter of validity – Scope of application of the Charter – Constitutionalisation of the UN Convention

Type
Articles
Information
European Constitutional Law Review , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 275 - 305
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of European Constitutional Law Review

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Professor of Law, Maynooth University Department of Law (Ireland). I would like to thank Giuseppe Martinico and Charles Edward O’Sullivan for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this article. I am also grateful to the editors and the two peer reviewers for their insightful remarks and constructive criticism. The usual disclaimers apply.

References

1 Waddington, L., From Rome to Nice in a Wheelchair. The Development of a European Disability Policy (Europa Law Publishing 2006)Google Scholar.

2 The Treaty of Amsterdam also included a Declaration stating that the EU institutions must take account of the needs of persons with disabilities in drawing up measures under former Art. 95 EC (now Art. 114 TFEU).

3 This article refers to the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights as EU constitutional sources (inter alia Case C-621/18, Andy Wightman, ECLI:EU:C:2018:999, para. 44).

4 ECJ 11 April 2013, Joined Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11, HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Jette Ring v Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab (C-335/11) and HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Lone Skouboe Werge v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Pro Display A/S, in liquidation (C-337/11) (HK Danmark), ECLI:EU:C:2013:222. On these aspects see L. Waddington, ‘The European Union’, in L. Waddington and A. Lawson, The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Practice. A Comparative Analysis of the Role of Courts (Oxford University Press 2018) p. 131.

5 See ‘Annotated review of European Union law and policy with reference to disability prepared by Janina Arsenjeva, under the direction of Professor Lisa Waddington, on behalf of the Academic network of European disability experts 2019’ available at ⟨http://www.disability-europe.net/theme/eu-law-and-policy⟩, visited 5 September 2020.

6 Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation [2000] OJ L 303/16.

7 Furthermore, the EU has progressively undertaken a comprehensive policy approach to disability, currently revolving around the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (currently under revision). See Communication from the European Commission, European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe, COM(2010) 636 final. The protection of the rights of persons with disabilities has also been embedded in the European Pillar of Social Rights, jointly proclaimed and signed by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on 17 November 2017 (Communication from the European Commission, ‘Establishing a European Pillar of Social Rights’ COM (2017) 250 final, and European Commission, ‘Commission Recommendation of 26 April 2017 on the European Pillar of Social Rights’, C(2017) 2600 final).

8 Among many others see E. Muir, EU Equality Law. The First Fundamental Rights Policy of the EU (Oxford University Press 2018). For a recent analysis on the Charter in case law on non-discrimination see A. Ward, ‘The Impact of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on Anti-discrimination Law: More a Whimper than a Bang?’, 20 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies (2018) p. 32.

9 A. Lawson, ‘The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and European Disability Law: A Catalyst for Cohesion’, in O.M. Árnadóttir and G. Quinn (eds.), The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: European and Scandinavian Perspectives (Brill 2009) p. 81; D. Ferri and S. Favalli, ‘Defining Disability in the EU Non-Discrimination Legislation: Judicial Activism and Legislative Restraints’, 22 European Public Law (2016) p. 537; D. Ferri and S. Favalli, ‘Tracing the Boundaries between Disability and Sickness in the European Union: Squaring the Circle?’, European Journal of Health Law (2016) p. 5; D. Schiek, ‘Intersectionality and the Notion of Disability in EU Discrimination Law’, 53(1) Common Market Law Review (2016) p. 35; L. Waddington, ‘The Influence of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on EU Anti-Discrimination Law’, in U. Belavusau and K. Henrard, About EU Anti-Discrimination Law beyond Gender (Hart Publishing 2018) p. 339.

10 The term ‘social-contextual model’ has been used first by A. Broderick, The Long and Winding Road to Equality and Inclusion for Persons with Disabilities: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Intersentia 2015) p. 77, and by L. Waddington, ‘Saying all the right things and still getting it wrong: the Court of Justice’s definition of disability and non-discrimination law’, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law (2015) p. 576.

11 See among others D. Ferri and A. Lawson, Reasonable accommodation for disabled people in employment. A legal analysis of the situation in EU Member States, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway (Publications Office of the European Union 2016); L. Waddington and A. Broderick, Disability Law and the Duty to Reasonably Accommodate Beyond Employment: A Legal Analysis of the Situation in EU Member States (Publications Office of the European Union 2016).

12 L. Waddington and A. Lawson, ‘The Unfinished Story of EU Disability Non-Discrimination Law’, in A. Bogg et al. (eds.), Research Handbook on EU Labour Law (Edward Elgar 2016) p. 474; J Clifford, ‘The UN Convention and its Impact on European Equality Law’, 6 Equal Rights Review (2011) p. 11.

13 L. Waddington and A. Broderick, Combating Disability Discrimination and Realising Equality: A Comparison of the UNCRPD and EU Equality and Non-discrimination Law (Publications Office of the European Union 2018).

14 On the Charter see M. Bell, ‘Article 20 – Equality before the Law’, in S. Peers et al. (eds.), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary (Hart 2014); C. Kilpatrick, ‘Article 21 - Non Discrimination’ in Peers et al.; and C. O’Brien, ‘Article 26 – Integration of Persons with Disabilities’ in Peers et al. On the Directive see, generally, L. Waddington and E. Muir, ‘Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation’, in E. Ales et al. (eds.), International and European Labour Law. Article-by-Article Commentary (Hart 2018) p. 520.

15 E. Muir, ‘EU Citizenship, Access to “Social Benefits” and Third-Country National Family Members: Reflecting on the Relationship Between Primary and Secondary Rights in Times of Brexit’, 3(3) European Papers (2018) p. 1353.

16 K. Lenaerts, ‘Exploring the Limits of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’, 8(3) EuConst (2012) p. 375 at p. 403.

17 See e.g. ECJ 19 September 2018, Case C-312/17, Surjit Singh Bedi v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ECLI:EU:C:2018:734.

18 This principle, according to the Court of Justice’s established case law, requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified. See ECJ 5 March 2015, Case C-463/12, Copydan Båndkopi, ECLI:EU:C:2015:144, paras. 31 and 32.

19 E. Muir, ‘The Essence of the Fundamental Right to Equal Treatment: Back to the Origins’, 20(6) German Law Journal (2019) p. 817, at p. 832.

20 M. Bell, ‘The Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination’, in T. Hervey and J. Kenner, Economic and Social Rights under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Legal Perspective (Hart Publishing 2006) p. 91 at p. 97 ff.

21 Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, [2007] OJ C 303/02.

22 Ibid. This provision is based on Art. 15 of the European Social Charter and draws inspiration from point 26 of the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, which establishes that ‘[a]ll disabled persons, whatever the origin and nature of their disablement, must be entitled to additional concrete measures aimed at improving their social and professional integration. These measures must concern, in particular, according to the capacities of the beneficiaries, vocational training, ergonomics, accessibility, mobility, means of transport and housing’.

23 See the distinction drawn by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment N. 4 on the right to education, 26 August 2016, UN Doc. CRPD/C/GC/4, para. 11. Notably the European Pillar on Social Rights has used a language that is more consistent with that of the UN Convention by referring to ‘Inclusion of people with disabilities’ (supra n. 7).

24 C. O’Brien, ‘Union Citizenship and Disability: Restricted Access to Equality Rights and the Attitudinal Model of Disability’, in D. Kochenov (ed), EU Citizenship and Federalism: The Role of Rights (Cambridge University Press 2017) p. 509 at p. 514.

25 Supra n. 10.

26 A. Broderick and D. Ferri, International and European Disability Law and Policy: Text, Cases and Materials (Cambridge University Press 2019) chapter 1.

27 C. O’Brien, ‘Article 26 – Integration of Persons with Disabilities’ in Peers et al., supra n. 14, p. 709 at p. 713.

28 ECJ 22 May 2014, Case C-356/12, Wolfgang Glatzel v Freistaat Bayern, ECLI:EU:C:2014:350, para. 78.

29 T. Lock, ‘Rights and Principles in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’, 56(5) Common Market Law Review (2019) p. 1201.

30 Glatzel, supra n 28, para. 78. Emphasis added.

31 Lock, supra n. 29, p. 1222.

32 HK Danmark, supra n. 4.

33 ECJ 18 March 2014, Case C-363/12, Z v A Government Department and The Board of management of a community school, ECLI:EU:C:2014:159, para. 75.

34 Preamble para. (e), CRPD.

35 O.M. Arnardóttir, ‘A Future of Multidimensional Disadvantage Equality’, in Arnardóttir and Quinn, supra n. 9, p. 41.

36 UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No. 6 on equality and non-discrimination, 9 March 2018, UN Doc. CRPD/C/GC/6, para. 11.

37 Ibid.

38 Inter alia see A. Broderick and P. Watson, ‘Disability in EU Non-discrimination Law’, in D. Ferri and A. Broderick (eds), Research Handbook on EU Disability Law (Edward Elgar, forthcoming 2020).

39 L. Waddington, ‘Case C-13/05, Chacón Navas v. Eurest Colectividades SA, judgment of the Grand Chamber of 11 July 2006’, 44 Common Market Law Review (2007) p. 487.

40 ECJ 11 July 2006, Case C-13/05, Sonia Chacón Navas v Eurest Colectividades, ECLI:EU:C:2006:456.

41 Chacón Navas, supra n. 40, para .39 ff.

42 Ibid., para. 53.

43 Opinion of AG Geelhoed delivered on 16 March 2006 Case C-13/05, Sonia Chacón Navas v Eurest Colectividades, ECLI:EU:C:2006:184.

44 Chacón Navas, supra n. 40, para. 57.

45 Opinion of AG Geelhoed, supra n. 43, para. 47.

46 Chacón Navas, supra n. 40, para. 56.

47 Ibid., para. 56.

48 ECJ 17 July 2008, Case C- 303/06, S. Coleman v Attridge Law and Steve Law, ECLI:EU:C:2008:415.

49 Opinion of AG Maduro 31 January 2008, Case C-303/06, S. Coleman v Attridge Law and Steve Law, ECLI:EU:C:2008:61.

50 Contra Broderick and Watson argue the ECJ reasoning in Coleman ‘reflects the Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Poiares Maduro in the case, an Opinion which refers to the CRPD and seems to have been taken into account by the CJEU in handing down its judgment’ (Broderick and Watson, supra n. 38). Furthermore, it is interesting to note that some national constitutional courts started to cite or refer to the UN Convention even before the ratification. See, for example, the Italian Constitutional Court Judgment No. 251/2008.

51 CFI 30 January 2002, T-54/99, Maxmobil Telekommunikation Service GmbH v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2002:20, paras. 48 and 57. See also ECJ 22 February 2005, Case C-141/02 P, Commission v T-Mobile Austria GmbH, ECLI:EU:C:2005:98, paras. 16 and 20.

52 Opinion of AG Mischo 20 September 2001, Joined Cases C-20/00 and C-64/00, Booker Aquacultur Ltd (C-20/00) and Hydro Seafood GSP Ltd (C-64/00) v The Scottish Ministers, ECLI:EU:C:2001:469, para. 126.

53 Chacón Navas, supra n. 40, para. 11; Coleman, supra n. 48, paras. 3 and 43.

54 T. Connor, ‘Discrimination by association: a step in the right direction’, 32 Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law (2010) p. 59 at p. 59.

55 Muir, supra n. 15, p. 1357, citing N. Walker. See also R. Schutze, European Constitutional Law (Cambridge University Press 2012).

56 Opinion of AG Geelhoed, supra n. 43, para. 58.

57 C. O’Mahony and S. Quinlivan, ‘The EU Disability Strategy and the Future of EU Disability Policies’, in Ferri and Broderick, supra n. 38.

58 K. O’Brien and B. Koltermann, ‘The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU in Practice’, 4 ERA Forum (2013) p. 457.

59 Ibid.

60 G. de Búrca, ‘After the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: The Court of Justice as a Human Rights Adjudicator?’, 20(2) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law (2013) p. 168.

61 E. Frantziou, ‘The Binding Charter Ten Years on: More than a “Mere Entreaty”?’, 38 Yearbook of European Law (2019) p. 73.

62 Glatzel, supra n. 28.

63 HK Danmark, supra n. 4.

64 N. Betsh, ‘The Ring and Skouboe Werge Case: A Reluctant Acceptance of the Social Approach of Disability’, 4 European Labour Law Journal (2013) p. 135.

65 Among others see L. Waddington, ‘HK Danmark (Ring and Skouboe Werge): Interpreting EU Equality Law of the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities’, European Antidiscrimination Law Review (2013) p. 11.

66 HK Danmark, supra n. 4, para. 41.

67 Schiek, supra n. 9, p. 55.

68 Ibid., para. 48 ff.

69 ECJ 4 July 2013, Case C-312/11, Commission v Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2013:446.

70 ECJ 18 January 2018, Case C-270/16, Carlos Enrique Ruiz Conejero v Ferroser Servicios Auxiliares SA and Ministerio Fiscal, ECLI:EU:C:2017:788.

71 ECJ 11 September 2019, Case C-397/18, DW v Nobel Plastiques Ibérica SA, ECLI:EU:C:2019:703.

72 See the literature cited supra at n. 9. For a recent account see Broderick and Watson, supra n. 38.

73 EC 18 December 2014, Case C-354/13, Fag og Arbejde (FOA), acting on behalf of Karsten Kaltoft v Kommunernes Landsforening (KL), acting on behalf of the Municipality of Billund, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2463.

74 ECJ 1 December 2016, Case C-395/15, Mohamed Daouidi v Bootes Plus SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial, Ministerio Fiscal, ECLI: EU:C:2016:917.

75 Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation [2000] OJ L303/16.

76 ECJ 9 March 2017, Case C-406/15, Petya Milkova v Izpalnitelen direktor na Agentsiata za privatizatsia i sledprivatizatsionen control (Milkova), ECLI:EU:C:2017:198.

77 Z v A Government Department, supra n. 33.

78 Glatzel, supra n. 28.

79 Ibid., para. 37.

80 Ibid., para. 86.

81 Ibid., para. 51.

82 Ibid., para. 52.

83 Ibid., para. 56.

84 Ibid., para. 62.

85 Ibid., para. 64.

86 The Luxembourg judges refused to assess the validity of point 6.4 of Annex III vis-à-vis Art. 2 of the UN Convention, because the latter did not display direct effect. See para. 68 ff.

87 Ibid., para. 74 ff.

88 Ward, supra n. 8, p. 41.

89 Ibid., p. 33-34.

90 Among others C. O’Brien, ‘Driving Down Disability Equality? Case C-356/12 Wolfgang Glatzel v. Freistaat Bayern, Judgment of 22 May 2014’, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law (2014) p. 723.

91 Glatzel, supra n. 28, para. 75.

92 D. Ferri, ‘Disability in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’, in Ferri and Broderick, supra n. 38.

93 Glatzel, supra n. 28, para. 80 ff.

94 O’Brien, supra n. 90, p. 727.

95 Ward, supra n. 8, p. 41.

96 Ibid., p. 59.

97 Frantziou, supra n. 61, p. 89.

98 F. Fontanelli, ‘National Measures and the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – Does curia.eu Know iura.eu?’, 14(2) Human Rights Law Review (2014) p. 231 at p. 233. On the scope of application see also B. De Witte, ‘The Scope of Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’, in G. González Pascual and A. Torres Perez, The Right to Family Life in the European Union (Routledge 2017) p. 29; D. Sarmiento, ‘Who’s Afraid of the Charter? The Court of Justice, National Courts and the New Framework of Fundamental Rights Protection in Europe’, 50 Common Market Law Review (2013) p. 1267. For critical overview on the interpretation of the scope of the Charter by the ECJ see also J. Snell, ‘Fundamental Rights Review of National Measures: Nothing New under the Charter?’, 21 European Public Law (2015) p. 285.

99 Lenaerts, supra n. 16, p. 377.

100 Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, supra n. 21, ad articulum.

101 ECJ 13 July 1989, Case 5/88, Wachauf, ECLI:EU:C:1989:321.

102 ECJ 18 June 1991, Case C-260/89, ERT, ECLI:EU:C:1991:254.

103 ECJ 26 February 2013, Case C-617/10, Åkerberg Fransson, ECLI:EU:C:2013:105, para. 21. Emphasis added. See also Opinion of AG Sharpston, 14 November 2013, Case C-390/12, Robert Pfleger and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2013:747, para. 41.

104 ECJ 10 July 2014, Case C-198/13, Víctor Manuel Julian Hernández and others, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2055, para. 34.

105 ECJ 6 March 2014, Case C-206/13, Siragusa, ECLI:EU:C:2014:126, para. 25. See also Opinion of AG Bobek 7 September 2017, Case C-298/16, Ispas, ECLI:EU:C:2017:650.

106 Opinion of AG Saugmandsgaard Øe 27 October 2016, Case C-406/15, Milkova, ECLI:EU:C:2016:824, para. 60.

107 Ibid., para. 64.

108 Ibid., para. 65.

109 Ibid.

110 Milkova, para. 36 ff.

111 Ibid., para. 51.

112 Ibid., para. 64.

113 Muir, supra n. 19, p. 838.

114 ECJ 21 December 2011, Joined Cases C411/10 and C493/10, N. S. and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2011:865.

115 Z v A Government Department, supra n. 33, para. 65.

116 Ibid., para. 66. A very similar reasoning can be found in ECJ 18 September 2019, Case C-366/18, José Manuel Ortiz Mesonero, ECLI:EU:C:2019:757.

117 Z v A Government Department, supra n. 33, para. 81.

118 Opinion of AG Wahl 26 September 2013, Case C-363/12, Z v A Government Department and The Board of management of a community school, ECLI:EU:C:2013:604, para. 113 referring to paras. 71-75.

119 Ibid., para. 71.

120 Ibid., para. 73.

121 Ibid.

122 Schiek, supra n. 9, p. 42.

123 Favalli and Ferri, ‘Defining Disability’, supra n. 9, p. 559.

124 Ibid.

125 Waddington, supra n. 10, p. 585.

126 Ibid.

127 M. Finck and B. Kas, ‘Surrogacy Leave as a Matter of EU Law: CD and Z’, 52(1) Common Market Law Review (2015) p. 281.

128 Kaltoft, supra n. 73.

129 Ibid., paras. 33-35.

130 Ibid.

131 Ibid., para. 38.

132 Ibid., para. 39.

133 Opinion of AG Jääskinen 17 July 2014, Case C-354/13, Kaltoft, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2106, para. 25.

134 For a comment on the relationship between obesity and disability, see D. Hosking, ‘Fat Rights Claim Rebuffed: Kaltoft v Municipality of Billund’, 44 Industrial Law Journal (2015) p. 460; G. de Beco, ‘Is obesity disability: The definition of disability by the Court of Justice of the European Union and its consequences for the application of EU anti-discrimination law’, 22(1) Columbia Journal of European Law (2016) p. 381.

135 For a full account of the case see D. Ferri, ‘Daouidi v Bootes Plus SL and the Concept of “Disability” in EU Anti-Discrimination Law’, 10(1) European Labour Law Journal (2019) p. 69.

136 Opinion of AG Bot 26 May 2016, Case C-395/15, Daouidi v Bootes Plus SL, ECLI:EU:C:2016:371.

137 Daouidi, para. 59.

138 Ibid., para. 65.

139 Ibid., para. 68.

140 Ward, supra n. 8, p. 36.

141 Gualco, for example, suggests that the CJEU has gone too far in attempting to include obesity within the ground of disability and should have ‘accommodated the legal value of the Charter by acknowledging its enforceability within the situation at stake’: E. Gualco, ‘The Development of Age and Disability Equality Within the European Union: The Court of Justice and the (Mis)implementation of EU General Principles’, 4 Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo (2019) p. 979 at p. 987.

142 Waddington and Broderick, supra n. 65.

143 D. Ferri, ‘Disability in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’, in Ferri and Broderick, supra n. 38.

144 Glatzel, supra n. 28, para. 46.

145 In Glatzel when it refused to assess the validity of point 6.4 of Annex III vis-à-vis Art. 2 of the UN Convention, the Court reiterated that the principle of consistent interpretation requires secondary law to be interpreted in a manner consistent to that Convention. See to that effect Glatzel, supra n. 28, para. 69 ff.

146 CFI 17 September 2007, Case T-201/04, Microsoft Corp v Commission, ECLI: EU:T:2007:289, para. 798.

147 On consistent interpretation, see F. Casolari, ‘Giving Indirect Effect to International Law within the EU Legal Order: The Doctrine of Consistent Interpretation’, in E. Cannizzaro et al. (eds.), International Law as Law of the European Union (Martinus Nijhoff 2012) p. 395.

148 D. Ferri, ‘The Conclusion of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by the EC/EU: A Constitutional Perspective’, in L. Waddington and G. Quinn (eds.), European Yearbook of Disability Law vol. 2 (Intersentia 2010) p. 47.

149 Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the accessibility requirements for products and services [2019] OJ L 151/70, preamble para. 103.

150 Communication from the European Commission, European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe, COM(2010) 636 final, p. 11. Emphasis added.

151 Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’Instance de Sens (France) lodged on 30 August 2018 (Case C-562/18).

152 Case C-562/18, Order of Cancellation issued on 13 June 2019 EU:C:2019:506.

153 Request for preliminary ruling Case C-824/19, Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia.

154 Ibid. Along these lines, a Lithuanian tribunal has recently asked the Luxembourg judges whether the Employment Equality Directive must be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law which provide that ‘impaired hearing below the prescribed standard constitutes an absolute impediment to work as a prison officer and that the use of corrective aids to assess compliance with the requirements is not permitted’. In answering this question, the Court will inevitably have to consider the meaning of disability and the role that stigma and prejudice play in this kind of provision (Request for preliminary ruling Case C-795/19, Tartu Vangla).

155 O’Brien, supra n. 24.

156 De Witte, supra n. 98, p. 29.

157 Waddington, supra n. 10.

158 ECJ 17 May 2017, Case C-133/15, Chavez-Vilchez v Raad van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank, ECLI:EU:C:2017:354.

159 K. Lenaerts, ‘EU citizenship and the European Court of Justice’s “stone-by-stone” approach’, 1 International Comparative Jurisprudence (2015) p. 1.