*José Smits was invited to speak at the European Parliament’s workshop about rights of persons with disabilities on 2 December 2025.
Below is an edited version of her speech, in which José talks about:*
- The EU has a strong human rights base and has formally committed to disability rights, but major gaps remain in practice.
- The UN CRPD Committee has twice found serious failures, especially on independent living, legal protection against discrimination, and institutionalisation.
- Progress is uneven because the EU acts more forcefully where it has clear powers, and avoids firm action where competence and political consensus are limited.
- EU funding still supports institutional care in several Member States, despite a stated commitment to community-based support.
- The Equal Treatment Directive remains blocked after many years, leaving people with disabilities without effective EU-level legal protection against discrimination.
José Smits is a contributing member of European Disability Expertise. José Smits was Secretary General of Inclusion Europe.
Human rights are part of EU foundations
In a time of war, political tension, and growing pressure on human rights, the European Union matters. It exists to promote peace, cooperation, and welfare. Human rights are not an add-on. They are part of its foundation.
This also applies to the rights of persons with disabilities. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibits discrimination on the grounds of disability and guarantees participation in society. The EU is also the first and only regional organisation to have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Disability rights are reflected in EU law, policies, and funding programmes. This deserves recognition.
At the same time, praise does not replace scrutiny. The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has reviewed the EU twice. It published Concluding Observations in 2015 and again in 2025. Both reviews found serious gaps in implementation. I was asked to analyse these findings. I did so for the European Parliament in 2021, and again now, based on the most recent review.
What the UN Committee Found
In 2015, the UN CRPD Committee identified major shortcomings. The EU had not ratified the Optional Protocol to the CRPD. There was no Equal Treatment Directive. There were no effective EU policies to reduce institutionalisation. Guardianship systems and substituted decision-making remained in place. The right to vote for persons with intellectual disabilities was not properly addressed.
The EU Disability Strategy 2010–2020 was meant to serve as an implementation plan for the CRPD. It did not cover all articles of the Convention. As a result, key issues were left untouched.
The Committee raised concerns about segregation in education, the large number of adults and children living in institutions, and discrimination in access to healthcare. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these gaps became painfully visible. Around three million persons with disabilities, including older persons, were estimated to live in institutions across the EU.
The Committee also acknowledged progress, especially on accessibility. This uneven record is not accidental. The EU acts most strongly where it has shared competence with Member States, such as the internal market. This explains the Accessibility Act. In areas where the EU has limited competence, such as health, education, and independent living, action is weaker and relies mainly on soft tools like funding conditions and guidance.
Political limits and missed priorities
Some issues are blocked by a lack of political consensus. Article 5 of the CRPD requires equal and effective legal protection against discrimination. The proposed Equal Treatment Directive would provide this protection. It was introduced in 2008. For more than fifteen years, it has been blocked by a small number of Member States.
Disability strategies, both past and current, tend to reflect these political and legal limits. Priorities are set based on what seems feasible, not on what is most urgent. In contrast, the European Parliament has consistently taken a broad approach in its resolutions, calling for action across all CRPD rights. The result is a gap between identified problems and concrete follow-up.
The Parliament’s Committee on Petitions therefore recommended a change of approach. Priorities should be based on urgency. Political support should be built deliberately to break long-standing deadlocks.
2025: Same problems, less patience
The 2025 Concluding Observations repeat many concerns from a decade earlier. The tone is sharper. Praise for the Accessibility Act is more limited, particularly because access to the built environment remains voluntary.
Key legal gaps remain. The Optional Protocol is still not ratified. The Equal Treatment Directive is still not adopted. Earlier in 2025, the Commission even announced its intention to withdraw the proposal. After strong criticism from civil society and a clear rebuke from the UN Committee, the proposal was put back on the agenda, without any certainty of adoption.
The Committee also questioned whether the EU fully accepts the Committee’s General Comments when interpreting its obligations under the CRPD.
The Committee called for an immediate update of the current Disability Strategy. All concrete actions under the existing strategy ended in 2024.
Independent living: A core dispute
The Commission is preparing an updated strategy. Its language is ambitious. It promises equal rights, equal participation, freedom of movement, and the right to choose where and with whom to live. Actions on independent living are announced for the second quarter of 2026. Their impact remains uncertain.
Independent living is the most contested issue. For more than ten years, EU policy has formally supported the transition from institutional care to community-based support. EU funding is meant to contribute to this shift.
Civil society organisations have shown that this policy is failing. The number of people living in institutions has not decreased.Gender equality It has increased. Evidence has been presented of new institutions being built with EU funds in several Member States, including Greece, France, Austria, and Hungary.
NGOs have asked the Commission to suspend or recover these funds. The Commission has refused. Legally, it relies on Member States to select and monitor projects. Politically, it argues that institutional care is not explicitly prohibited under EU funding rules.
In its replies to the UN Committee, the Commission stated that residential care facilities may be funded, depending on national progress towards deinstitutionalisation. It also argued that investments in residential infrastructure can be compatible with independent living under certain conditions.
This reasoning implies that independent living can take place in institutions. The UN Committee rejected this view. It concluded that EU funds are still being used to maintain and expand institutions. Its recommendation was clear: EU funds must be used strictly for community-based support services, not for institutions.
Equal treatment: The other unfinished business
The Equal Treatment Directive is the second unresolved issue. It would give direct effect to Article 5 of the CRPD in EU law. It would allow persons with disabilities to challenge discrimination beyond employment, including in education, healthcare, and access to goods and services.
Some argue that national laws make EU action unnecessary. If that logic were accepted, much of EU equality law would never have existed.
Others point to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In practice, persons with disabilities cannot effectively bring discrimination cases based on Articles 21 and 26 of the Charter. This is not due to a lack of discrimination. Nearly half of Europeans report having experienced disability-based discrimination.
EU history shows that enforceable law matters. Gender equality in employment only advanced when EU legislation allowed individuals to go to court. Disability rights need the same legal force.
Conclusion
Two issues remain largely unresolved and insufficiently debated. Progress on independent living is stalled because the EU avoids firm action where its competence is limited. The Equal Treatment Directive has been blocked for seventeen years due to political resistance.
Both issues require clear priorities and political courage. The European Parliament and the Commission should place them at the centre of their work.
Read also: