Introduction
This essay examines the legal issues surrounding Elisabeth’s situation under EU law, specifically in relation to Directive 123/2022 on “Access to Public Transport for Everyone”. The directive mandates equal access to public transport for persons with disabilities, including those accompanied by assistance dogs. Elisabeth, a deaf individual in Slovakia, has been repeatedly denied access to public transport by Bus 25 Ltd due to her hearing dog. This essay addresses two key questions: whether Elisabeth can enforce her EU rights against Bus 25 Ltd and, if so, how; and whether she could claim damages from Slovakia if she loses her job due to these access issues. The analysis draws on foundational EU legal principles, including direct effect and state liability, to provide clarity on Elisabeth’s potential legal avenues.
Enforcing EU Rights Against Bus 25 Ltd
Directive 123/2022, adopted by the Council and Parliament, required implementation by 1 July 2024. Article 4 of the directive imposes a duty on public transport providers to ensure full and equal access for persons with disabilities, explicitly including those with assistance dogs. Slovakia’s implementing legislation, Statute 456/2023, however, limits this protection under Article 2 to blind and partially sighted individuals with guide dogs, thereby excluding other disabilities such as deafness and other assistance dogs like hearing dogs.
Under EU law, directives generally lack horizontal direct effect, meaning they cannot be directly enforced by individuals against private entities such as Bus 25 Ltd (Case 152/84 Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority, 1986). However, the principle of vertical direct effect allows individuals to rely on directives against the state or emanations of the state if the directive is clear, precise, and unconditional, and the implementation deadline has passed (Case 41/74 Van Duyn v Home Office, 1974). Bus 25 Ltd, as a private company, is unlikely to qualify as an emanation of the state unless it can be shown to be under significant state control or performing a public service function with special powers (Case C-188/89 Foster v British Gas, 1990). Without further evidence of such status, Elisabeth cannot directly enforce the directive against Bus 25 Ltd.
Alternatively, Elisabeth could rely on the principle of consistent interpretation, which obliges national courts to interpret domestic law in line with EU directives as far as possible (Case 14/83 Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, 1984). She could bring a claim in a Slovakian court, arguing that Statute 456/2023 should be interpreted broadly to include all assistance dogs, aligning with Directive 123/2022. If the court refuses due to the explicit wording of the statute, this avenue may be limited.
Claiming Damages from Slovakia for Loss of Job
If Elisabeth loses her job due to inability to access public transport, she may consider a claim for damages against Slovakia under the principle of state liability. Established in Case C-6/90 Francovich v Italy (1991), this principle allows individuals to claim compensation from a member state for loss suffered due to failure to implement a directive, provided three conditions are met: the directive grants rights to individuals, the content of those rights can be identified from the directive, and there is a causal link between the state’s failure and the damage suffered (Craig and de Búrca, 2020).
Directive 123/2022 clearly intends to confer rights on individuals with disabilities, including Elisabeth, to access public transport with assistance dogs. Slovakia’s incomplete implementation through Statute 456/2023, which excludes deaf individuals with hearing dogs, arguably constitutes a breach. If Elisabeth can demonstrate that this breach caused her job loss, she may have a valid claim. She would need to initiate proceedings in a national court, proving the causal link between the state’s failure and her financial or personal loss. However, establishing causation could be challenging if other factors contributed to her job loss.
Conclusion
In summary, Elisabeth is unlikely to directly enforce her EU rights against Bus 25 Ltd due to the limitations of horizontal direct effect, unless the company is deemed an emanation of the state. An alternative lies in seeking consistent interpretation of Slovakian law in line with Directive 123/2022. Regarding damages for potential job loss, she may pursue a claim against Slovakia under the Francovich principle, provided she can establish a direct causal link between the state’s failure to fully implement the directive and her loss. These legal avenues, while complex, highlight the protective scope of EU law, though their success depends on judicial interpretation and the specific circumstances of her case. This situation underscores broader challenges in ensuring uniform application of EU directives across member states, particularly in safeguarding disability rights.
References
- Craig, P. and de Búrca, G. (2020) EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 7th ed. Oxford University Press.
- Case 14/83 Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] ECR 1891.
- Case 41/74 Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECR 1337.
- Case 152/84 Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority [1986] ECR 723.
- Case C-6/90 Francovich v Italy [1991] ECR I-5357.
- Case C-188/89 Foster v British Gas [1990] ECR I-3313.
