170:
joint) judgment. The ECJ found that a worker who is dismissed only on grounds of sickness is not protected by the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability. The judgement has been generally regarded as setting the scene for further judgements relating to the definition of disability, as there is no discussion of Navas' illness having been anything more than a 'sickness' (e.g. not a limitation that amounted to 'disability').
129:
issued an opinion based on a medical model of disability. He also stated that an "autonomous and uniform" Community meaning should be given to "disability". He said disability is tied to the concept of a permanent limitation on activities, and while acknowledging that disability could arise from
116:
The domestic
Spanish labour courts agreed with Ms Navas' employers that illness did not amount to 'disability', which was the subject of the EU directive and that Spanish law allowed Eurest to fire Navas based on their cost benefit analysis (i.e. financial compensation versus continuing to employ
188:
would have meant that employers would have had to backfill the position of Navas until she could return to work. The ECJ's interpretation has limited the definition of disability as well as medicalising it, which stands in contrast to EU policy makers attempts, at some levels, to introduce the
183:
The consequences of the case mean that the ECJ has protected employers in their actions against employees who lose capacity due to minor or temporary illnesses, in the case of
Spanish law allowing them to make a cost-benefit analysis to pay compensation and rid themselves of an individual. The
169:
which had been referred to in
European Commission documents underpinning the Directive. One reason for the absence of the judges' opinion of the applicability of the social model is that the ECJ does not publish dissenting views of judges on its bench, but instead must issue a collegiate (i.e.
102:
After eight months her employers wrote to her purporting to end her employment. In the letter they admitted that the termination was 'unlawful' (Spanish industrial law allows unlawful termination with financial compensation). She claimed that the termination was instead 'void' and sought
177:) was probably intentional. Some academics saw this as an opening for a wider more social definition of disability. However, this lack of definition left the door wide open to a Court exercising its power to narrow, not expand, the definition.
154:
43. “...the concept of “disability” must be understood as referring to a limitation which results in particular from physical, mental or psychological impairments and which hinders the participation of the person concerned in professional
77:
103:
reinstatement according to anti-discrimination provisions. She made her claim to the
Spanish Courts under the disability provisions of Spanish law, which were in turn based on the EU Framework Equality Directive 2000/78/EC.
200:
Lisa
Waddington, Professor and European Disability Forum Chair in European Disability Law, Maastricht University, has suggested that the decision may have helped countries to insert a clear social model definition into the
196:
The ECJ decision, with its inherent uncertainty and reliance on the medical approach, may reinforce the medical model in the EU member states, and perhaps other international jurisdictions, like the US.
164:
In the absence of a definition in the
Directive, the ECJ used the medical model of disability, which focuses on a person's impairment. The judgement has also been criticised for failing to refer to the
130:
sickness, sickness was a separate concept that did not mean disability. He found that sickness by itself is not enough to trigger protection under the
Directive. This reasoning was adopted by the
99:
Ms Navas, an employee of a catering company, was sick and waiting for an operation. The ECJ decision does not contain any detail about what illness prevented her from working for eight months.
180:
The ECJ case leaves uncertainty about what sicknesses would result in disability, such as episodic mental illness, or sicknesses that take time to become full-fledged permanent limitations.
147:
173:
The
Framework Directive on Employment did not define 'disability', which given the importance of the Directive and the well known laws in other countries (such as the US's
294:
259:
146:, which states that the Community exists with "a view to lasting high employment and the combating of exclusion." It referred to the mention of disability in the
202:
190:
205:, as the EU representative withdrew their opposition to an explicit social model definition following the publication of the ECJ decision.
143:
289:
284:
232:
117:
her). This interpretation allows employers to discriminate against sick people, as opposed to people with disability.
174:
61:
36:
279:
84:
166:
88:
274:
131:
80:
left open the definition of disability, which allowed the Court to adopt its own definition.
8:
73:
229:
87:(although it does not require medical diagnosis of a disability), rather than the
83:
The judgment has been criticised by academics as potentially being too close to a
236:
268:
65:
126:
69:
220:
Community
Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, para 26
230:
Prof. Lisa
Waddington's Powerpoint presentation on the Navas decision
148:
Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers
203:
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
191:
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
266:
295:Court of Justice of the European Union case law
68:case that sets forth a uniform definition of
189:social model, which is now entrenched in the
137:
260:EU rapid press release on the ECJ decision
57:Chacón Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA
19:Chacón Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA
267:
78:EU Framework Directive on Employment
120:
13:
111:
14:
306:
253:
142:The ECJ started with Article 136
72:in the European Union. Both the
290:2006 in European Union case law
175:Americans with Disabilities Act
159:
285:European Union labour case law
223:
214:
1:
244:
39:, IRLR 706, All ER (EC) 59
7:
106:
85:medical model of disability
10:
311:
167:social model of disability
89:social model of disability
138:European Court of Justice
132:European Court of Justice
49:Disability discrimination
48:
43:
31:
27:European Court of Justice
23:
18:
208:
94:
184:opposite conclusion in
235:March 2, 2011, at the
157:
152:
280:Disability case law
74:Treaty of Amsterdam
125:Advocate General
53:
52:
302:
275:Spanish case law
239:
227:
221:
218:
121:Advocate General
16:
15:
310:
309:
305:
304:
303:
301:
300:
299:
265:
264:
256:
247:
242:
237:Wayback Machine
228:
224:
219:
215:
211:
162:
140:
123:
114:
112:Domestic courts
109:
97:
12:
11:
5:
308:
298:
297:
292:
287:
282:
277:
263:
262:
255:
254:External links
252:
251:
250:
246:
243:
241:
240:
222:
212:
210:
207:
161:
158:
139:
136:
122:
119:
113:
110:
108:
105:
96:
93:
51:
50:
46:
45:
41:
40:
33:
29:
28:
25:
21:
20:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
307:
296:
293:
291:
288:
286:
283:
281:
278:
276:
273:
272:
270:
261:
258:
257:
249:
248:
238:
234:
231:
226:
217:
213:
206:
204:
198:
194:
192:
187:
181:
178:
176:
171:
168:
156:
151:
149:
145:
135:
133:
128:
118:
104:
100:
92:
90:
86:
81:
79:
75:
71:
67:
66:EU labour law
63:
59:
58:
47:
42:
38:
34:
30:
26:
22:
17:
225:
216:
199:
195:
185:
182:
179:
172:
163:
160:Significance
153:
141:
124:
115:
101:
98:
82:
56:
55:
54:
150:, para 26.
127:Ad Geelhoed
269:Categories
245:References
70:disability
32:Citations
233:Archived
107:Judgment
76:and the
44:Keywords
134:(ECJ).
62:C-13/05
60:(2006)
37:C-13/05
35:(2006)
155:life.”
64:is an
209:Notes
186:Navas
95:Facts
24:Court
144:TEC
271::
193:.
91:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.