Experts of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Commend Austria’s Institutions Monitoring Disability Rights, Raise Issues Concerning Deinstitutionalisation Efforts and Sheltered Workshops for Persons with Disabilities
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities today concluded its consideration of the combined second and third periodic report of Austria on its implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Committee Experts commended the work of the institutions monitoring disability rights in the State, while raising issues concerning deinstitutionalisation efforts and sheltered workshops for persons with disabilities.
Markus Schefer, Committee Expert and Member of the Country Taskforce for Austria, commended Austria’s institutions monitoring disability rights. Mr. Schefer said these institutions had undertaken exquisite work that had laid the groundwork for the dialogue. He and other Experts welcomed the participation of the institutions in the dialogue.
Bernhard Achitz, representative of the Austrian Ombudsman Board, said in his opening statement that the Ombudsman Board had observed with deep concern that there was no substantial deinstitutionalisation strategy in Austria. Markus Schefer, Committee Expert and Member of the Country Taskforce for Austria, echoed the comments of Mr. Achitz, saying persons with disabilities did not have the right to choose where to live or who to live with. Did the State party intend to develop a deinstitutionalisation plan?
Mr. Schefer also noted that the assessment of persons with disabilities’ capacity to work was based on the medical model. This had enormous consequences for people assessed to have no capacity to work, who were placed in sheltered workshops and segregated. What was the Government doing to remedy this serious violation? What measures were in place to promote the transition to the open labour market?
Introducing the report, Helmut Tichy, Ambassador, Director General, Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs and head of the delegation, said Austria had developed a new National Action Plan on Disability for the period 2022 to 2030, which was adopted in July 2022. The Action Plan contained 288 objectives, 150 indicators and 375 measures to improve the living conditions of persons with disabilities. It focused on ensuring conformity with the requirements of the Convention, the Committee’s concluding observations and the recommendations from the evaluation of the previous Action Plan.
Mr. Tichy said a central focus for the Government was to improve the situation of persons with disabilities in sheltered workshops. A first important step was a legal provision to stop the automatic determination of incapacity for work for this group of persons, until they reached the age of 25. In addition, a study on “wages instead of pocket money” was currently being finalised, which would deal with the concrete effects of a system change. The delegation added that 385 million euros had been invested this year to improve employment of persons with disabilities, and more would be invested next year. The Government was investigating alternatives to sheltered workshops.
Different steps had been taken, the delegation noted, in the regions to promote deinstitutionalisation, which was also promoted within the National Action Plan on Disability. However, there was not a dedicated strategy or funding for deinstitutionalisation yet. The Government would discuss the development of such a strategy with civil society. A pilot Government project was in place to harmonise rules regarding personal assistance.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Tichy said Austria pursued serious disability policies in all areas and was encouraging the full participation of persons with disabilities in public life. The Government seriously considered all requests from civil society and cooperated with institutions monitoring the situation of persons with disabilities. The State party awaited the Committee’s concluding observations with great interest. These would continue to inspire the State’s disability policies.
Markus Schefer, Committee Expert and Member of the Country Taskforce for Austria, said the State party had displayed openness and engaged in a robust exchange with the Committee. Many issues remained, including fundamental ones, which would be framed in the concluding observations. Mr. Schefer said that he wished to make specific note of the persistent reluctance of the Lander to implement disability policies. The Lander needed to take their obligations under the Convention seriously.
The delegation of Austria consisted of representatives of the Ministry for European and International Affairs; Ministry of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection; Federal Chancellery; Ministry for Education, Science and Research; Ministry of the Interior; Ministry of Justice; Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology; Federal Government of Lower Austria; Ombudsoffice for Persons with Disabilities; and the Permanent Mission of Austria to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of Austria at the end of its twenty-ninth session, which concludes on 8 September. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work of the Committee’s twenty-ninth session and other documents related to the session can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Wednesday, 23 August at 3 p.m. to consider the initial report of Israel (CRPD/C/ISR/1).
Report
The Committee has before it the combined second and third periodic report of Austria (CRPD/C/AUT/2-3).
Presentation of Report
HELMUT TICHY, Ambassador, Director General, Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs and head of the delegation, said Austria was among the first states to sign the Convention and its Optional Protocol in 2007; it had ratified both instruments in 2008. In 2013, the first dialogue with the Committee took place, which positively influenced the country’s disability policy in the following years. In 2018, a comprehensive reform of the legislation on guardianship, the Second Protection of Adults Act, entered into force. A new German translation of the Convention was published in 2016 that had been elaborated in close cooperation with civil society. An easy read version was also created, which was rare in the German-speaking world.
In 2017, an amendment to the Federal Disability Equality Act was enacted to expand and facilitate the right to file representative actions. Now, in addition to the Austrian Disability Council, the Litigation Association for the Enforcement of the Rights of Victims of Discrimination and the Disability Ombudsperson were able to file representative actions. For the first time, actions for injunctive relief and the elimination of discrimination against individuals and large corporations had been made possible. Since 2022, court proceedings under the Federal Disability Equality Act could be brought before the Supreme Court during a period of ten years, regardless of the amount in dispute.
In 2017, an amendment to the Federal Disability Act ensured the independence of the Monitoring Committee, in accordance to the Paris Principles, and the provision of its own annual budget. This strengthened the Committee’s independence and guaranteed its ability to act in the future. In addition, all regional governments had established monitoring mechanisms. The National Action Plan on Disability 2022–2030 provided for adequate and independent public funding of the monitoring committees of the regions.
After the first National Action Plan on Disability 2012 to 2021, Austria developed a new National Action Plan on Disability for the period 2022 to 2030, which was adopted in July 2022. As a national strategy for the implementation of the Convention, the Action Plan contained the long-term guidelines of Austrian disability policy. The National Action Plan contained 288 objectives, 150 indicators and 375 measures to improve the living conditions of persons with disabilities. The second National Action Plan focused on ensuring conformity with the requirements of the Convention, the Committee’s concluding observations and the recommendations from the evaluation of the first Action Plan. Ongoing scientific monitoring and evaluation was planned for the second Action Plan.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, employment for persons with disabilities was maintained at an above-average level. An employment offensive ensured 385 million euros were available in 2023, for measures to improve the occupational participation of people with disabilities and to ensure their education until the age of 18. In 2023 and 2024, the Government would also focus on employment for women with disabilities. Another central focus was to improve the situation of persons with disabilities in sheltered workshops. A first important step was a legal provision to stop the automatic determination of incapacity for work for this group of persons, until they reached the age of 25. In addition, a study on “wages instead of pocket money” was currently being finalised, which would deal with the concrete effects of a system change.
Austria was in the process of implementing a nationwide general framework regarding the rules and procedures for providing personal assistance to persons with disabilities. Financial incentives were given to those regions which applied the framework to their system of providing personal assistance. The Government would provide up to 100 million euros to implement the nationwide general framework. To improve data on persons with disabilities, a special cooperation with Statistics Austria was established. In July 2023, Parliament passed the Federal Act on Accessibility Requirements for Products and Services, which would support visually and hearing-impaired persons to organise their everyday lives more independently.
The Convention had positively influenced Austria's disability policy in the last 15 year and was reflected in many areas of legislation, administration and jurisprudence. At the same time, Austria was aware that it still needed significant commitment and work to implement all aspects of the Convention in practice. Its goal was an inclusive society in which persons with disabilities were no longer discriminated against and were able to participate equally in social, political and economic life.
Opening Statements
CHRISTINE STEGER, Austrian Disability Ombudsperson, said Austria had ratified the Convention with a reservation of fulfilment, meaning that it did not apply it directly. The Convention had yet to be incorporated into national legislation, as the State party had promised. There were various guidelines in place regarding care. The broad definition of disability was not included in national legislation. Many persons with disabilities were not given the opportunity to live independently. Austria continued to define disability based on a medical model. The division of competences led to a fragmentation of services for persons with disabilities. Individuals were required to go through a difficult process to claim discrimination based on disability. When cases of discrimination were found, only small amounts of compensation were offered, and removal from employment was not an option for punishment for perpetrators. A pilot project for inclusive education had been abandoned in 2016. Certain persons with disabilities were excluded from services such as personal assistance. There had been serious deterioration of accessible housing. The State needed to provide access to reasonable accommodation for all persons with disabilities. Special schools needed to be dismantled and inclusive schools promoted. Access to employment and community-based services also needed to be provided.
TOBIAS BUCHNER, Co-Chair of the Independent Monitoring Committee, said that over the last 10 years, several efforts had been made by the State to implement the Convention. However, many challenges remained. 10 years ago, the Chair of the Monitoring Committee highlighted the urgent need to transform the education system into a more inclusive one, and the Committee had recommended the same. However, no significant progress had been made towards inclusive education, and discrimination of persons with disabilities within the education sector remained prevalent.
DANIELA RAMMEL, Co-Chair of the Independent Monitoring Committee, said Austria was bound to implement measures to promote the rights of women and girls with disabilities. The relevant provisions of the Convention had not been implemented. Women and girls with disabilities continued to face barriers in several aspects of life and faced a high risk of violence. Women and girls with disabilities did not receive adequate sexual education or protection from violence.
BERNADETTE FEUERSTEIN, representative of the Independent Monitoring Committee, said disability services’ quality varied significantly across the State. The Monitoring Committee welcomed plans from the State to increase access to personal assistance, but there had not been any efforts to implement this plan thus far. The Monitoring Committee was also concerned about deinstitutionalisation. No visible efforts had been made to dismantle institutions. Institutions had continued to be built and renovated.
BERNHARD ACHITZ, representative of the Austrian Ombudsman Board, said there had been improvements since the last dialogue, but there were areas where more needed to be done. The Ombudsperson had observed with deep concern that there was no substantial deinstitutionalisation strategy in Austria. Persons with multiple disabilities had to rely on their admission into a home or the assistance of their families, and many care services had long waiting lists. Young people with disabilities were often sent to geriatric homes. The Ombudsman Board had observed an increasing number of cases of deprivation of liberty, a lack of communication tools, and a lack of willingness to provide sexual education. The Ombudsman Board demanded that persons employed in workshops be provided with regular wages. The application process for welfare benefits was complicated and confusing. The Board called for the establishment of a one-stop shop to support persons with disabilities to make applications for benefits.
Questions by Committee Experts
MARKUS SCHEFER, Committee Expert and Member of the Country Taskforce for Austria, said he had grown up in the eastern part of Switzerland, and had fond memories of travelling through Austria in his youth. There appeared to have been a shift in the efforts of the State party in 2017 to implement the Convention. Mr. Schefer said that there was a need to address federalism. The Lander seemed to be reluctant to implement the Convention, and the Committee would investigate this. Mr. Schefer congratulated the delegation for allowing so many organisations to make critical remarks.
The medical model appeared to be used in various areas of society. Did the Government intend to amend laws to promote the human rights model? There seemed to have been declines in the accessibility of buildings, and access to employment and health care since 2017. Had the political will to implement the Convention receded? There was no institutionalised method for consulting with organisations of persons with disabilities. Was there a plan to develop such a method?
Some Lander did not feel bound to implement the Convention, stating that implementation was a Federal Government issue. How did the Government respond to this stance? Did Austrian administrative bodies and courts have the jurisprudence to implement the Convention? Health services, educational goods and household appliances were not covered by the European Accessibility Act. Less than 50 per cent of requirements regarding digital accessibility had been implemented. What efforts had been made in this regard?
A Committee Expert asked what policy and programmatic steps had been taken to address intersectionality, noting limitations in legislation. The Convention specifically addressed women and children with disabilities. What policies had been implemented specifically for these groups?
Another Committee Expert welcomed the balance of voices presented by the delegation. The Expert called for information about revisions to the guardianship system. Did laws on gender perspectives incorporate the perspectives of women with disabilities? There were many institutions for children with disabilities. What measures were in place to ensure oversight of those institutes and prevent violations of the rights of children with disabilities? Was the State party aware of the Committee’s Guidelines on deinstitutionalisation? The Expert expressed concern that abortions of children at risk of having a disability were not punishable.
One Committee Expert asked about steps taken to align disability assessment tools with the Convention and the human rights model of disability. What measures had the State party taken to ensure inclusion of women and girls with disabilities in the implementation of recommendations within the Gender Equality Strategy? What measures were in place to deinstitutionalise children with disabilities in all Lander? What steps had been taken to combat stigmatisation of children with disabilities?
A Committee Expert called for information on the status of the “Inclusion Fund”, which was being discussed between the Federal Government and the Landers. What measures were in place to adopt and harmonise disability assessment regulations? Each Lander had a different disability assessment method, creating confusion for persons with disabilities. Although the State party had ratified the Optional Protocol, it had not made efforts to raise awareness among persons with disabilities regarding how it could benefit them. What plans were in place to disseminate the Optional Protocol widely? Discrimination on the basis of disability rarely led to court cases, as court processes were expensive and inaccessible. What measures were in place to increase access to renumeration for persons with disabilities who were victims of discrimination? How did the State plan to increase counselling services for women with disabilities and strengthen women’s associations throughout the State?
One Committee Expert said that there had been alarming budgetary cuts to legal aid. What strategies had been devised to ensure that children with disabilities could remain at home? Persons of small stature were often excluded from public policies on accessibility. What measures had the State party taken to guarantee accessibility for persons of small stature?
Another Committee Expert asked whether Austria provided financial and technical assistance to organisations of persons with disabilities to enable them to be involved in all matters related to disability. How were persons with disabilities involved in the design and delivery of awareness raising activities regarding disability?
A Committee Expert said that the German version of the Convention had had issues, such as using “inclusion” and “integration” interchangeably. Had these issues been addressed? What measures were in place to bring justice to and compensate victims of multiple discrimination?
One Committee Expert asked about measures adopted to ensure that the needs of persons with disabilities were considered in asylum application processing.
Another Committee Expert asked how Landers intended to implement disaster evacuation measures? How were persons with disabilities involved in developing accessibility policies?
One Committee Expert asked about measures to eliminate multiple and intersectional forms of discrimination against women and girls with disabilities. What gender mainstreaming efforts were carried out regarding disability policy?
A Committee Expert asked how outcome assessments of policies related to disability were implemented in practice, and how persons with disabilities were involved. There had been no reviews of the implementation of the Convention or reviews of legislation to make it compliant with the Convention. There had also been no discussion regarding establishing a committee for this purpose. When would such a committee be established, and would it be provided with adequate budget to carry out its functions?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said three laws applied regarding persons with disabilities, which each considered people’s individual situations. Medical aspects were used as a means to evaluate disability. Steps had been taken to move to a human rights-based model during the past few years. Different measures existed based on different disabilities. The personal needs of persons with disabilities needed to be assessed within the legal framework. Representatives of civil society would review disability legislation up until 2028. The national action plan included over 100 measures developed with civil society.
The Government was promoting inclusion in the new laws being developed, and headway had been made in the last five years. The COVID-19 pandemic presented barriers to implementing disability policies. The Federal Government had established a fund for personal assistance, sign language and other measures to promote the rights of persons with disabilities. There had been progress in implementing the Convention in the Lander. The Lander had demonstrated this commitment at the national Inclusion Forum. The standing committee for implementing the Convention was a key element of the national action plan on disability. This committee would be established in 2024 and would carry out its duties until 2028.
The State party was working to improve the participation of women with disabilities in employment. Over 300 million euros were invested towards promoting employment of women with disabilities in 2022. 41 per cent of wages for women with disabilities were paid by the Government. A study of women with disabilities in the labour market had been carried out, which had presented recommendations for bolstering their employment. The Government was also working to harmonise services for women with disabilities and improve databases of information on this group, with the Austrian statistical authority. Women with disabilities were often victims of violence. 96 per cent of Austria was covered by institutions which provided support to women victims of violence.
The Government promoted civil society participation, including organisations of persons with disabilities, in the development of policies and projects for persons with disabilities. Over the last year, the Government had cooperated with different organisations of persons with disabilities, to develop awareness raising campaigns on disability rights, including for persons with hearing disabilities.
The National Action Plan on Disability was a measure for implementing the Convention. Organisations of persons with disabilities had been included in developing the first plan, but representatives of regional governments had not. However, they were involved in developing the second plan. Financing of the plan had already been approved by regional governments. An intense discussion of how to integrate persons with disabilities had been carried out.
Federal legislation on accessibility allowed for discrimination to be challenged outside of court. 1,468 cases of discrimination had been reported, and prosecution had been achieved in most cases. The Parliament had approved legislation aiming to remove barriers to State services. Under this legislation, persons with disabilities were able to take measures to force institutions to make their services accessible. There was an organisation monitoring barrier-free access to internet sites. As of 2022, 61 per cent of websites had content that was accessible to over 50 per cent of persons with disabilities.
The Convention included obligations to put it into practice, which Austria respected. When ratifying international agreements, Austria had numerous laws in harmony with the Convention, and was doing work to identify gaps. There were no cases in which there had been issues of overlapping jurisdictions between Austria and the European Union. Persons with disabilities had a broad legal basis for the protection of their rights. Austria had made efforts to translate the Convention into German and develop an easy read format. This allowed for increased access to the Convention for citizens of Austria with disabilities.
The Lander were aware of the importance of the Convention from a legal perspective and different Landers had made varied progress in its implementation. Three Landers were now implementing guideline laws on the Convention. Landers were enacting measures to improve the lives of persons with disabilities, as part of the National Action Plan on Disability. Persons with disabilities were included in the Landers’ policy deliberations. There were councils representing the interests of persons with disabilities in Vienna. Children and youth authorities were promoting family and community-based care for children with disabilities. There was an exchange taking place between the Lander and the Federal State on disability issues. A conference including representatives from each Lander was held to establish services for persons with disabilities and develop them further. Efforts were being made to harmonise legislation on disability between Landers on the western side of the State.
Access to public transport for persons with disabilities remained a significant challenge. Measures had been developed to increase the accessibility of public transport and were being implemented by regional authorities. A new accessible fleet of buses was being procured, and civil society organisations had been consulted on their design. Those organisations had also assessed efforts to make railway infrastructure more accessible. Work was underway on the
harmonisation of regional transport laws.
The law on the rights of children took into account their needs and desires. Financial support was provided to 91,000 children with disabilities. Additional medical exams were not needed to obtain support. Families received support of 60 euros per month. 260 euros per month was also offered for children who needed education and training support. The budget for families with children with disabilities had been increased in 2022. Brochures had also been produced for families on caring for children with disabilities.
Abortions had no legal consequences if they took place in the first three months of pregnancy. Abortion without a temporal limit was possible if there was a possibility that the child could have a disability. The State party had attempted to strike a balance between the rights of the mother and the rights of the child. Parents thus had more time to decide on abortions, if there was a risk of disability. More measures were needed to support parents of children with disabilities.
Numerous measures were in place to provide training for public officials dealing with asylum applications, on the treatment of persons with disabilities. Each individual case needed to be taken into consideration.
The Government considered the effects of all laws on persons with disabilities, to guarantee that they could be integrated in all areas of public life and politics. Persons with disabilities could receive compensation. A framework giving persons with disabilities easier access to legal procedures had been developed in 2017, although there were limitations. The streamlined procedures only applied to claims against large companies. This was a good instrument for change that the Government hoped to develop.
The Convention was legally binding in Austria. The decision of the Parliament that direct application of the Convention would not occur did not change the State’s obligation to implement it in all regions.
Follow-Up Questions by Committee Experts
One Committee Expert asked whether women with disabilities were integrated into the public employment service. What institutions were in place to support children with disabilities? Disability should not be a cause leading to a late abortion. The mother needed to be able to decide whether her child had a disability. Private security companies had been employed to carry out tasks in public hospitals which was concerning. Had the State party set up a mechanism for oversight of psychiatric institutions? How many irreversible procedures had been carried out involving minors? What measures were in place to prevent forced sterilisation?
MARKUS SCHEFER, Committee Expert and Member of the Country Taskforce for Austria, said the State party had a programme to bring the laws of the Lander in line with the Convention. Were the Lander on board with this programme? The follow-up to the first National Action Plan on Disability appeared haphazard. Individuals were unlikely to undertake civil procedures against large companies. Were there plans to extend these measures to smaller companies and individuals? Landers had made serious regressions. The threshold for housing accessibility had been raised in some Lander, for example. Lander did not provide persons with disabilities with opportunities to express their opinions concerning their policies. What plans were in place to counter Lander policies? What specific rules were there to improve accessibility of public transport? Children with psychosocial disabilities had a hard time receiving an education. How was the State party supporting the formation of organisations of children with disabilities?
The Adult Protection Act was welcome. However, there were more people under representative situations than before due to a lack of support from the Lander. Representative decision making remained prevalent. What measures were in place to address this? There did not seem to be a tangible plan for deinstitutionalisation. People did not have the right to choose where to live or who to live with. Did the State party intend to develop such a plan? Would the State party amend building codes to support community-based living?
REHAB BORESLI, Committee Expert and Member of the Country Taskforce for Austria, said the dialogue aimed to improve the lives of persons with disabilities. What strategies had been adopted to end institutionalisation? Were persons with disabilities involved in processes of representation? How was the State party ensuring housing shelter outside of institutions? Were persons with disabilities empowered to make their own decisions regarding housing? What percentage of the budget was allocated to support persons with disabilities to access mobility devices? How were persons with disabilities and their carers properly trained to use these devices?
Another Committee Expert asked about the findings of the study into violence against persons with disabilities. How would these findings be used to protect persons with disabilities from abuse?
One Committee Expert asked about measures taken to involve organisations of persons with disabilities in the design of disaster recovery measures. Would emergency response planning be part of the State’s planned data upgrade?
A Committee Expert asked about the training provided for public officials on legal mechanisms for supportive decision making.
Another Committee Expert asked about procedures taken to ensure that the Convention was fully binding at the Lander level. Were persons with intellectual disabilities provided with procedural accommodation in judicial settings? How did the State party ensure that treatments on persons with intellectual disabilities were conducted with their free and informed consent?
One Committee Expert asked whether a disability perspective was included in the national action plan on violence against women, and legal provisions on cyber violence. What measures were in place to prevent violence and abuse against women with disabilities, including through educational measures on how to prevent and report incidences of abuse?
A Committee Expert said that despite efforts to recognise the legal capacity of persons with disabilities, the process lacked a support system and personal assistants had not been made available. How did the Government intend to address this to ensure full implementation of supported decision making?
Another Committee Expert asked for more information on evacuation regulations considering disability. How did the State intend to finance personal assistants and assist people with psychosocial disabilities to live in the community?
Responses by the Delegation
HELMUT TICHY, Ambassador, Director General, Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs and head of the delegation, said that in international law, there was a need to distinguish between validity and direct applicability. There was no doubt that the Convention was fully binding in international law. However, it was not directly binding in Austria, due to the specialised laws in the country. Austria did not intend to make it directly applicable, as the Convention was applied through laws at the national and regional levels. Both the European Union and its member States were parties to the Convention. The obligations of the Convention were binding for the European Union. However, this did not mean that the Convention was directly applicable in Austria. The same discussion was ongoing regarding the Istanbul Convention.
The delegation said in Austria, companies with over 25 employees had to employ one person with disabilities. All regions fulfilled this obligation. Measures had been taken to improve employment of persons with disabilities in the public service. The public service offered a number of places for persons with disabilities, with a disability degree of 60 per cent. This degree had recently been decreased from 70 per cent. Women with disabilities represented 44 per cent of workers with disabilities in the federal public service. Special training programmes were in place for women with disabilities in the public service. The Government was funding 25 per cent of the salaries of women with disabilities in the private sector.
The National Action Plan on Disability was Austria’s national strategy for implementing the Convention, and under the plan, each Government department was implementing disability mainstreaming. In the new Plan, a financial evaluation of each measure had been carried out, to ensure that appropriate funding was available. 100 million euros had been attributed this year and next year for implementing these measures.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, regular meetings had been held by the Government to discuss support measures for persons with disabilities. Special holidays were provided for families with persons with disabilities, and family allowances were increased for these families. The pandemic had led to expedited efforts to improve statistics on persons with disabilities.
The Government was implementing measures to support the mobility of persons with disabilities and were investing millions of euros per year towards this. For example, discounts for public transport were provided for persons with disabilities.
Persons with disabilities had the right to decide where they wished to live and with whom. Deinstitutionalisation required accessible housing and other supportive measures. Different steps had been taken in the regions to promote deinstitutionalisation, which was also promoted within the National Action Plan on Disability. However, there was not a dedicated strategy or funding for deinstitutionalisation yet. The Government would discuss the development of such a strategy with civil society.
A pilot Government project was in place to harmonise rules regarding personal assistance. The goal was to offer equal treatment to all persons with disabilities across Austria. Planning was required to implement this project nation-wide. The Government aimed to set up a one-stop shop for persons with disabilities to allow them to access services. Civil society had stressed the need to consider all types of disability in rules promoting personal assistance. This project would contribute to achieving deinstitutionalisation and promoting independent living.
The Equal Treatment Act for Persons with Disabilities had been reformed to give persons with disabilities more opportunities to bring complaints to courts. Class actions were now possible. Persons with disabilities no longer needed to attend court individually, and could be represented by organisations receiving funding from the Government. The National Action Plan included a chapter on equal treatment and equality. An English version of the Plan would be prepared in the coming weeks. The Plan included measures to develop and evaluate the Equal Treatment Act. The Government aimed to increase the possibility of claiming for omission.
A German translation and easy read version of the Optional Protocol had been prepared. The Committee’s previous concluding observations had also been translated and an easy read version developed. Measures aiming to prevent violence against persons with disabilities had been developed. The Ombudsman Board acted as a national preventive mechanism, visiting institutions to ensure there were no violations of persons with disabilities’ rights. This work contributed to protecting persons with disabilities from violence.
Each region was mandated to create in-patient and out-patient facilities for persons with disabilities, who were free to choose where they wished to go. The Government always took the client’s wishes into consideration. All regions had agreed to create a working group to examine local implementation of the Convention by 2027. Each region implemented the Convention in different ways. Regions had created structures for persons with disabilities to help them with discernment. Staff working in nursing homes were trained to support persons with disabilities. Different processes had been created in different regions to address violence against persons with disabilities. Authorities examined the situation regularly to develop measures to address deficiencies in the preventative strategy.
The Civil Code regulated representation of persons with disabilities in courts. The social model of disability was used to determine whether representation was necessary. Persons with disabilities could only have representation in courts if they wished for it themselves, or if it was necessary. Legislation stated that the represented person could make decisions regarding their lives. Decisions could only be taken by representatives if there was danger to the life of the person involved. The person involved also had veto rights and could choose to change their representative. A circle of support persons needed to be mobilised if a person with disabilities could not make a decision concerning medical treatment. Reports also needed to be prepared concerning decisions about a change of residence. The person concerned had the right to file legal action regardless of whether they were deemed to have decision-making capacity. For such cases, court decisions needed to be prepared in easy read format. The law was ambitious, but it needed to be put into practice. There were 35,000 legal representatives today, and the different forms of representation had increased due to a lack of support. Regions were responsible for supporting this disability policy. The Government hoped that the supported decision-making system would be expanded. Civil society organizations promoting supported decision-making needed additional support. The Government welcomed the Committee’s advice in this regard. Judges were provided with training on the law regarding decision-making.
There were strict rules in Austria regarding the training of health sector staff. Only doctors were permitted to provide medical services. Health sector staff needed to have up-to-date medical knowledge and experience. Sterilisations could take place in hospitals and medical offices. In 2022, over 400 sterilisations took place, including as part of tumour removal procedures. However, data was not collected on whether the sterilised persons had disabilities. Psychosocial aspects and support structures were considered, regarding procedures on transgender persons. Security services were not allowed to conduct medical procedures. The use of security services in hospitals had been assessed by the Ombudsman Board.
Austria had passed an act last year amending regulations concerning detainment in psychiatric institutions. The amendments incorporated stricter assessments of the likelihood of reoffending, and introduced special provisions concerning crimes committed by juveniles. Only juveniles who had committed crimes with a maximum punishment of at least 10 years could be placed in psychiatric institutions. Criminal acts committed against persons with disabilities were recognised as hate crimes and aggravating circumstances.
The sexual exploitation of persons with intellectual disabilities was criminalised. The public security service and offenders were prohibited from entering an area in which a person at risk resided, or from approaching these people. Compliance with entry and approach prohibitions were checked by the police. Restraining orders could be applied for a maximum of one year and could be extended. Austria provided victims with the right to pose questions to perpetrators, without being present in court rooms. Victims were entitled to psychosocial support throughout court proceedings. Legal advice and representation by an attorney were also offered. Persons with disabilities needed to be informed about their rights in a manner they could understand. The Criminal Code criminalised trafficking in and sexual exploitation of persons with disabilities, and applied especially high penalties for such acts.
Questions by Committee Experts
MARKUS SCHEFER, Committee Expert and Member of the Country Taskforce for Austria, said the National Action Plan contained financial estimates for each measure. Had financial assessments been carried out independently, as per the recommendation of The University of Vienna? What measures were in place to implement the Committee’s Views submitted under the Optional Protocol?
Using institutions to insert new measures was not an appropriate measure for promoting deinstitutionalisation. Efforts by the Lander to promote deinstitutionalisation were clearly insufficient. There appeared to be insufficiencies concerning medical staff’s knowledge of disability rights around forced sterilisations. The State party needed to investigate this further. Persons deemed unfit for trial due to a disability often received harsher sentences. The State party needed to reform the criminal justice system to end this inequality.
There was no information on budgetary resources on reasonable accommodation for children. If a Lander did not provide sufficient resources, children with disabilities could not obtain a sufficient education. What were the Landers’ plans to provide such resources? The State party aimed to achieve inclusive education by 2030. Could the State party speed up the process? How would the State remove barriers for children with disabilities to access education?
The assessment of the capacity to work was based on the medical model. This had enormous consequences for people assessed to have no capacity to work, who were placed in sheltered workshops and segregated. What was the Government doing to remedy this serious violation? What measures were in place to promote the transition to the open labour market?
REHAB BORESLI, Committee Expert and Member of the Country Taskforce for Austria, asked how the State party ensured that children with disabilities were not segregated from their families? Access to inclusive education was a basic right that needed to be promoted by all stakeholders. What measures were in place to facilitate learning of braille and alternative mode of communication? How did the State party ensure sign language learning from early childhood? Were training programmes in place for teachers to support children with disabilities and promote inclusive education?
A Committee Expert said assessments of levels of disability were not in line with the Convention. Did guardians make decisions concerning marriage of persons with disabilities? The State party needed to assess whether mental health policy was in line with the Convention. There was discussion of excluding persons with disabilities from regular employment. What was the proportion of young persons with disabilities participating in training and compulsory schooling? How many projects for persons with disabilities were being supported by the European Agricultural Fund?
Another Committee Expert asked about steps taken to protect persons with disabilities from discrimination in employment and ensure reasonable accommodation in workplaces. What measures were in place to ensure accessibility of voting stations and the provision of accessible materials for elections? What measures had the State party taken to support the inclusion of women with disabilities in political life and elections?
One Committee Expert asked how the Federal State would support the Lander to ensure that disaster response plans included persons with disabilities. Would the planned improvements for data collection include requirements for disaggregated and accurate data on persons with disabilities, to inform the development of policies and programmes? Was inclusive disability research promoted in partnership with organisations of persons with disabilities?
A Committee Expert noted that nine universities would advertise doctoral positions for persons with disabilities. How many persons with disabilities had applied for and accepted these offers, and what support measures were in place for these positions? Was there a strategic plan to dismantle sheltered workshops and promote equal pay for equal work? Was the State party ensuring that all polling stations were accessible? Were there political representatives with disabilities involved in driving forward the disability agenda?
Another Committee Expert asked how funding and provision of assistive devices was regulated across the regions. How did the Government intend to facilitate the participation of persons with disabilities in public life, through appointing them to decision making positions?
One Committee Expert said 45 million euros had been invested in an inclusion package for persons with disabilities. What reasonable accommodation was provided to promote the employment of persons with disabilities? Which institution monitored sheltered workshops to ensure that the rights of persons with disabilities were protected? It seemed that only 22 per cent of employers respected the labour quota for persons with disabilities. What measures were in place to promote compliance with the quota?
A Committee Expert said that institutions caused harm that lasted a lifetime for all people living in them and their families. The State party needed to take urgent action on deinstitutionalisation, following the Committee’s relevant General Comment.
Another Committee Expert called for sheltered workshops to be eradicated. How was Austria promoting labour market integration for persons with disabilities? Was the Ombudsoffice tasked with monitoring institutions housing persons with disabilities?
One Committee Expert noted that the Criminal Code contained provisions concerning exploitation, but there did not seem to be appropriate support for persons with disabilities and their families to report instances of abuse. The Disability Employment Act prohibited discrimination on the grounds of disability in the workplace. What measures were in place to promote equal pay for equal work and reduce the gender pay gap? How was the State promoting free work and acceptance in the labour market for persons with disabilities?
A Committee Expert said public inclusive education was mandatory for children with disabilities, from age six to 14. Children with disabilities were thus likely to miss out on education prior to age six. What measures were in place to ensure access to education for children below six with disabilities? The education law contained clauses that were not compliant with the Convention. Why had the State party not revised the Compulsory Education Law to ensure that children with disabilities had an equal right to access mainstream schools?
One Committee Expert asked for a specific timeframe for abolishing eugenic practices, which allowed abortion solely on the basis of disability. Why did Austria more time to make changes regarding institutionalisation? What budget had been allocated to inclusive education? What measures had the State party taken to ensure that all bilateral agreements were disability sensitive?
Another Committee Expert asked about the number of teachers in the disability system. How did the Government support persons with disabilities to receive a personal assistant?
A Committee Expert said that a 2023 judicial decision had found that personal assistance provided in federal schools was discriminatory. What measures were in place to ensure that personal assistance for children with disabilities in schools would be determined based on a human rights model, in consultation with organisations of persons with disabilities? University students with disabilities had a greater need for financial support, but this had not increased in recent years. What measures were planned to support university students with disabilities? How would it be ensured that universities provided reasonable accommodations and that there were avenues for students to lodge complaints?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the Committee’s views were not considered to be legally binding, and authorities considered them as such. The Ombudsman Board, national human rights institute and Independent Monitoring Office monitored the rights of persons with disabilities in institutions.
Within Austria’s youth strategy, people who defended young people received financial support. An advisory board on children with disabilities had been set up to promote inclusive participation of youth with disabilities. A youth conference was held in June this year, and one of its priority themes was inclusion. The State followed the United Nations gender equality strategy and promoted gender mainstreaming. Budgets for gender mainstreaming were defined by the different Government departments. Advisory groups were in place to address violence against women.
In 2022, several thousand euros were invested in preparing special schoolbooks for blind students. Millions of euros had been invested in promoting inclusive access to kindergartens.
The needs of people requiring protection in asylum processes were considered. Sign language interpreters were made available in such instances. Legal advice on the process was provided for people with special needs, free of charge. Persons with disabilities were accommodated in barrier-free asylum centres, where they received medical services.
Protection was provided at all levels to ensure persons with disabilities could be helped as quickly as possible in disaster situations. Special apps had been developed to provide information to persons with hearing disabilities. The warning system also conveyed information via text messages, so people without the app could access information on disasters.
Personal assistance was provided when requested, to assist persons with disabilities when voting. The Government aimed to make all voting centres accessible for persons with disabilities by 2028. Information on elections for persons with disabilities was made available online.
There were technical rules developed in 2017 concerning how railway carriages were created, which considered accessibility. 85 per cent of train stations had been made accessible, but there was work to be done to improve accessibility in regional areas.
School was mandatory for students up to 15 years of age. The number of students in Austria had been declining since the 1960s. However, the population increased last year through immigration. Children could attend school for longer that the mandatory nine years, up to grade 12. 1,268 requests from students with special needs to attend grades 11 and 12 had been lodged in 2022. A new school organisation had been implemented in the nine regions, which included 109 positions to promote inclusive education. Training of teachers had been revised to promote access for teachers with disabilities and inclusive education.
The database needed to be sectorial to ensure that it took into account all persons with disabilities. 385 million euros had been invested this year to improve employment of persons with disabilities, and more would be invested next year. Companies were advised of the Government’s support policies for persons with disabilities. The Government intended to cease using the evaluation of incapacity regarding work. The labour market and social ministry needed to develop services for persons with disabilities. The Government was working to prevent stigmatisation of persons with disabilities in the workplace. It had implemented projects such as wages instead of pocket money for people in sheltered workshops, and was investigating alternatives to sheltered workshops.
Closing Statements
TOBIAS BUCHNER, Co-Chair of the Independent Monitoring Committee, said to move forward and implement inclusive education in Austria, the Committee recommended sufficient and transparent funding of inclusive education; shifting funding from special schools towards inclusive education; development and implementation of a nationwide plan and plans in each federal state on the implementation of inclusive education; no reduction of teacher education and the establishment of a comprehensive in-service teacher education for inclusive education; incentives for schools to become inclusive schools; and rapid expansion of inclusive structures and services in elementary education.
DANIELA RAMMEL, Co-Chair of the Independent Monitoring Committee, said ensuring equal access to fairly compensated employment was essential for providing a secure and non-discriminatory life for women with disabilities. Nationwide, available, accessible peer advice for women with disabilities, especially regarding violence, was needed. The Committee recommended the mandatory implementation of violence protection plans for institutions for persons with disabilities, alongside ensuring comprehensive accessibility of victim and violence protection services. A nationwide plan regarding the reduction of institutions would reduce the risk of violence for women with disabilities considerably. Furthermore, systematic data collection was key to make the lived realities of women with disabilities visible.
BERNADETTE FEUERSTEIN, representative of the Independent Monitoring Committee, said that until the pilot project of the Ministry of Social Affairs on Personal Assistance was fully implemented, short-term interim solutions needed to be devised to ensure self-determination through personal assistance. The Government needed to implement immediate measures to combat precarious and health-threatening living conditions; set up a Monitoring Group of experts with disabilities for the pilot project; complete implementation of the directive on nationwide, unified personal assistance; and provide adequate funding or reallocation of financial resources towards deinstitutionalization. There needed to be no further investments in existing or new institutions, instead, community-based, individualised support systems needed to be expanded. Staged plans regarding the compulsory dismantling of institutions needed to be developed in the State’s action plans.
BERNHARD ACHITZ, representative of the Austrian Ombudsman Board, said that the Ombudsman Board was the national preventive mechanism. It could conduct unannounced visits to all institutions housing persons with disabilities. It was essential to end segregation in all aspects of life. Persons with disabilities needed to be included in processes to change legislation. The national action plan on disability did not consider civil society processes sufficiently, and measures were not appropriately funded. The Ombudsman Board looked forward to the Committee’s concluding observations in this regard. The Board expressed its willingness to work with Government and civil society to ensure the fulfilment of the recommendations.
HELMUT TICHY, Ambassador, Director General, Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs and head of the delegation, said the delegation hoped it had shown that Austria took disability issues seriously. The State party pursued serious disability policies in all areas and was encouraging the full participation of persons with disabilities in public life. Persons with disabilities had served as members of Austrian Parliament for a long time. The Government seriously considered all requests from civil society and cooperated with institutions monitoring the situation of persons with disabilities. Austria was engaged in promoting the rights of persons with disabilities in its overseas development policies. At least 10 per cent of official development assistance was dedicated to supporting persons with disabilities. The State party awaited the Committee’s concluding observations with great interest. These would continue to inspire the State’s disability policies.
MARKUS SCHEFER, Committee Expert and Member of the Country Taskforce for Austria, said during the dialogue, the State party had displayed openness and engaged in a robust exchange with the Committee. Many issues remained, including fundamental ones, which would be framed in the concluding observations. Mr. Schefer said that he wished to make specific note of the persistent reluctance of the Lander to implement disability policies. This was a serious issue. The Adult Protection Act needed to be implemented as it was intended by the Lander. The Lander needed to take their obligations under the Convention seriously. Mr. Schefer thanked Austria’s monitoring institutions, which had undertaken exquisite work that had laid the groundwork for the dialogue.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CERD23.015E