DREAM ITN
Final Deliverable
Stelios Charitakis
Faculty of Law, University of Maastricht
Supervisor: Professor Lisa Waddington
DREAM work package: Implementation: The Challenges and Consequences of
Implementation of the UN CRPD for the EU, with focus on Accessibility
April, 2015
1 1. Introduction to Topic & Research and Questions.
The title of my research project is “The challenges and the consequences of the
implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities for the European Union, with a focus on Accessibility.” In other words
this research project focuses on the interpretation and analysis of the principle of
accessibility and the obligations it entails under the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD or Convention) and the competence of
the European Union (EU) to implement these obligations through legislation or other
policy options.
It becomes clear from the above that my research project is divided in two parts. The
first part is related to human rights law and the second part to EU law. The first part
examines the content of accessibility within the context of the Convention and it
attempts to define accessibility both as a stand-alone principle and in comparison with
other similar concepts of the UNCRPD, specifically, reasonable accommodation and
universal design. It also provides an analysis of the nature of accessibility as a crosscutting principle of the Convention and the way it applies to the substantive articles of
the UNCRPD.
Furthermore, the first part of my research project focuses on the examination of the
nature of the obligations generated by Article 9 UNCRPD. In particular, it enumerates
the main obligations generated by the UNCRPD with regard to accessibility. It
explores the scope of application of these obligations and their nature. Lastly, it
reviews the connection between accessibility and equality in the context of Article 9
UNCRPD.
The overall aim of this part of my research is to deliver a clear understanding of the
function of accessibility as a principle of the Convention and the obligation it entails
for the State Parties of the UNCRPD with a view to provide a reference framework
for the implementation of these obligations by the EU.
The second part of this research project addresses several issues with regard to the
implementation of the obligations of the Convention with regard to accessibility by
the EU. In particular, it examines the effects the nature of the UNCRPD as a mixed
agreement has on EU law and policies and it identifies, in general terms, the
2 competence of the EU to implement the obligations of the UNCRPD with regard to
accessibility.
In addition, it examines the factors that contribute to the discussion of whether the
Member States or the EU should take action to implement the obligations of Article 9
UNCRPD with regard to accessibility, in the areas where they share the power to act.
It also attempts to propose the most appropriate mechanism at the EU level to make
this determination and coordinate the implementation of the UNCRPD by the EU and
the Member States.
Moving to the specific areas of potential action of the EU to implement the
requirements of the UNCRPD with regard to accessibility, this part examines both the
areas that the EU has taken actions to address accessibility concerns and whether
these actions fulfil the requirements of the UNCRPD with regard to the accessibility
of goods and services, the built environment and transport, and the areas where the
EU has the competence to take measures to implement those requirements.
Lastly, the second part of my research project examines other non-legal measures that
the EU can potentially adopt to implement the requirements of the UNCRPD with
regard to accessibility such as the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) and the
Europe 2020 Strategy. In general terms, the second part of my research project aims
to provide a legal framework on the overall approach that the EU should adopt to
implement the requirements of the UNCRPD with regard to accessibility.
Accessibility as a principle of the Convention is essential to the removal of barriers
that hinder the inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of life and their
ability to live independently. The EU by ratifying the UNCRPD is bound by its
obligations to implement the principle of accessibility. Despite the importance of the
ratification of the Convention by the EU, which demonstrates the willingness of the
EU to improve the situation of people with disabilities in the Union, in reality, the EU
has exclusive power to take actions to implement the requirements of the UNCRPD
and in particular the ones on accessibility, in very small number of areas (customs
Union, of the establishment of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of
the internal market, of monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the
euro, for the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries
3 policy and of the common commercial policy).1 In most areas that are essential to the
implementation of the UNCRPD the EU shares the power to act with its Member
States (internal market, social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty, economic,
social and territorial cohesion, agriculture and fisheries, environment, consumer
protection, transport, trans-European networks, energy, freedom, security and justice
and common safety concerns in public health matters).2 Even if the EU decides to act
in an area where it shares competence with the Member States with a view to
implement the requirements of the Convention, this action is permitted, only in the
case where the issue cannot be achieved in a sufficient manner by the Member States
and it could be better achieved by an EU action.3 Furthermore, this action should not
exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the EU Treaties.4 These
requirements show that EU action in spite of its importance could be limited in scope.
Therefore, the Member States of the EU cannot and should not rely on the EU for the
implementation of the requirements of the UNCRPD, but they need to coordinate
their actions with the EU so as to achieve a comprehensive implementation of the
UNCRPD obligations.
2.
My Research Journey.
The path to the completion of my research project has been quite straightforward.
Since the beginning of my research there have not been any significant alterations to
my research goals or methodology. From its starting point my research had a clear
structure and specific research methodologies that were not altered throughout my
research journey.
With regard to my research methodology, it is important to note that it depended on
the particular research question that needed to be addressed. Overall, this research
project followed the legal methodology with a focus on the relevant law, case-law,
legal doctrine and empirical data.
1
Article 3(1) TFEU. Article 4(2) TFEU. 3
Article 5(3) TFEU. 4
Article 5(4) TFEU. 2
4 In particular, the first part of my research project as I have described above, with a
view to determine the nature of the obligations of Article 9 UN CRPD on the ground
of accessibility, applied the rules of interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the
Law of the Treaties (VCLT). The VLCT contains several rules on the interpretation
that have been deemed as the appropriate means of interpretation by international law.
In particular, I used the literal method of interpretation in order to acquire a general
understanding of the ordinary meaning of the terms of Article 9 UNCRPD and of
other terms in several articles of the Convention that are relevant to accessibility.
I applied the contextual interpretation in order to interpret the terms of Article 9
UNCRPD in the context of the Convention, including the Preamble and Annexes, but
also, the case-law of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and
other documents published by this Committee. In addition I used other international
human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and the International Covenant of Economic Social and Cultural Rights and
several General Comments, Reports and Concluding Observations that their
respective Committees have produced.
I also employed the teleological interpretation with a view to identify the meaning of
the terms of Article 9 UNCRPD according to the object and purpose of Article 9
UNCRPD and the object and purpose of the Convention as a whole.
Moreover, I used the principle of effectiveness with a view to guarantee that my
interpretation provided a meaning to the terms of Article 9 UNCRPD that was
effective, real, and practical in ensuring the place of individuals as rights-holders
within international law.
Lastly, I used the travaux preparatoires of the UNCRPD in order to confirm the
meaning the terms of Article 9 UNCRPD resulting from the other interpretation
methods that I have used.
The second part of my research project uses mainly EU instruments, legal doctrine on
the relevant subjects and reports on both the implementation of the EU instruments by
the Member States and on the level of disability accessibility in the EU. It places
specific attention to, the EU Treaties, particularly to the legal bases of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) such as Article 19 TFEU (non 5 discrimination), 100 TFEU (transportation) and Article 114 TFEU (internal market)
and the articles that are relevant to the issue of EU competencies, including, articles 2,
3, 4, 5 and 6 TFEU. It also focuses on existing legislative (Regulations, Directives,
Decisions) or non-legislative (Standardization Mandates, the Open Method of
Coordination, Strategies, and others) instruments with regard to accessibility.
This research project aims to fill the knowledge gaps which exist in relation to the
definition of accessibility in the context of the UNCRPD and the analysis of the
nature of the obligations of Article 9 UNCRPD. In that regard, it also aims to fill the
knowledge gaps with regard to the interpretation of the text of Article 9 UNCRPD.
Despite some sporadic references on the issue of the definition of accessibility and the
nature of the obligations of Article 9 UNCRPD in scholarly texts, there has been no
comprehensive and precise analysis of these issues in legal theory. Furthermore, the
interpretation of Article 9 UNCRPD based on the VCLT rules of interpretation and
more generally, the interpretation of Article 9 UNCRPD has not been performed in a
systematic and comprehensive manner before. My research project attempts to
provide a precise and in depth analysis of those issues in accordance to the VCLT
rules of interpretation of international law.
Furthermore, my research project seeks to fill the knowledge gaps in relation to the
consequences of the ratification of the UNCRPD by the EU, the competence of the
EU to implement the requirements of Article 9 UNCRPD and the use of nonlegislative measures to implement the obligations generated by Article 9 UNCRPD.
Since the ratification of the Convention by the EU there have been some, but very
few, legal analyses on the consequences of the ratification of the UNCRPD by the EU
and none of those had focused on accessibility or provided a comprehensive analysis
of the nature of the UNCRPD as a mixed agreement of the EU. The issue of nonlegislative measures of the EU, such as the OMC and the Europe 2020 strategy,
implementing disability considerations has been addressed by very few scholars, but it
has not considered how these mechanisms can be used to both implement the
requirements of Article 9 UNCRPD as well as to coordinate the implementation of the
Convention by the EU and the Member States. My research project examines these
issues from both the perspective of the implementation of the obligations of Article 9
UNCRPD and the perspective of the coordination of the implementation of the
Convention by the EU and its Member States.
6 Lastly, the issue of EU competence to implement disability considerations has been
eloquently addressed by Waddington5 in an article that was the inspiration for the
designing of my research project. My research aims to explore the same issue in a
more extensive manner and with a focus on the requirements of Article 9 UNCRPD.
Throughout my research project it was evident that the majority of the people that are
responsible for the implementation of the requirements of the Convention are aware
of the systematic exclusion from all aspects of life that people with disabilities have
been facing. Nevertheless, they have been hesitant to take action to implement the
obligations that the UNCRPD entails with regard to accessibility, because of the
financial costs they require. This attitude is aggravated by the fact that the Convention
came into force in a time where the global economy was (and still is) in a dire
financial crisis. In that regard, any increase of the expenditure by the state or any
financial burden on the private sector is seen as an action endangering the economy of
that state. Furthermore, in the current economic climate there is a focus on the
immediate costs of the implementation of accessibility requirements and not the
financial and societal benefits that its implementation will provide in the future.
Therefore, it is essential to take actions as researchers to change these attitudes and to
persuade people in power that the actions to implement the requirements of the
UNCRPD with regard to accessibility apart from guaranteeing the fundamental rights
and freedoms of people with disabilities, they will result to financial and societal
benefits for all people and that the narrow view of considering only the costs
associated with accessibility unjustifiably disregards the great potential benefits that
these actions entail.
At the EU level, apart from the financial barriers, which are associated with the
implementation of the requirements of the UNCRPD with regard to accessibility,
there are some additional obstacles to this process of change. As I have explained
above, in most of the essential areas for the implementation of the requirements of the
UNCRPD with regard to accessibility the EU shares competence to take legislative
action with its Member States. This means that both the EU and the Member States
can potentially take measures to implement these requirements. This fact can possibly
create obstacles to the implementation of the UNCRPD, as there will be some
5
L. Waddington, A Disabled Market: Free Movement of Goods and Services in the EU and Disability Accessibility, European Law Journal, Volume 15, Issue 5, 2009. 7 confusion on the actor (the EU or the Member States) that should take the initiative to
implement those requirements. In spite of some attempts to clarify this issue in the
Council Decision concerning the conclusion of the UNCRPD6 and the Council Code
of Conduct setting out internal arrangements for the implementation by and
representation of the European Union relating to the UNCRPD7, the issue remains
unclear and as a result the effective implementation of the requirements of the
Convention by the EU and its Member States is at risk.
In addition, the examination of the current legislative measures of the EU, which take
into account accessibility, shows that there is a lack of cooperation between the
commissioners on this subject. There are areas of EU that have addressed accessibility
through legislation in a systematic manner, such as transport and the internal market,
and other areas that have failed to consider the particularly needs of people with
disabilities, inter alia, the area of consumer protection. This implies that there is lack
of effective communication within the commission with a view to implement
accessibility requirements in all the areas of EU law and policy. This ineffective
cooperation could potentially impede the implementation process of the requirements
of the Convention with regard to accessibility, because it could deprive EU actions
from adopting a comprehensive approach to the implementation of those
requirements.
3.
My Formation as a Policy Entrepreneur.
When it comes to accessibility, the process of change will certainly be long, gradual
and burdensome. This comes as a result of the systematic design of all aspects of life
in a way that it makes them inaccessible to people with disabilities. Thus, the
retrofitting of the built environment, transport or goods and services will certainly be
time and cost barriers. It is essential though, that at least an attitudinal change at the
6
Council Decision concerning the conclusion, by the European Community, of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 24 November 2009. 7
Council Code of Conduct between the Council, the Member States and the Commission setting out internal arrangements for the implementation by and representation of the European Union relating to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2010/C 340/08), [2010] OJ C 340/11 8 policy level will be made so as to prevent the emergence of new barriers to
accessibility in all aspects of life.
Despite the challenges that the implementation of Article 9 UNCRPD might entail,
there has been an welcoming response to those challenges by the EU, as it has
accelerate the implementation of the requirements of the Convention in its laws and
policies. This is evident from the adoption of a strategy8 to implement the
requirements of the Convention, including Article 9 UNCRPD, the proposal and
adoption of legislative measures that include strict obligations to the Member States to
guarantee accessibility in the fields of public procurement9 and structural funds10 and
the internal market11. A more ambitious step towards the implementation of Article 9
UNCRPD is the announcement of the intention of the Commission to propose the
European Accessibility Act that aims to increase the availability of accessible goods
and services and improve the free movement of accessible goods and services as
well.12 Moreover, the Court of Justice of the EU has shown signs of change in its
jurisprudence by incorporating the definition of disability that is entailed in the
Convention.13 Overall, it is evident that in spite of the challenges that the
implementation of the requirements of Article 9 UNCRPD, the EU has shown
surprising eagerness to take steps to implement those requirements.
With regard to legal researchers, there is the notion that they are cut off from the
reality of life and that their work does not penetrate the realms of life so as to provide
solutions to the challenges that the society faces. Nevertheless, legal researchers can
8
Communication COM (2010)636 from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions, European Disability Strategy 2010-­‐2020: A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-­‐Free Europe, Brussels, 15 November 2010. 9
European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/24/EU of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC. 10
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, Brussels, 6.10.2011 COM(2011) 615 final 2011/0276 (COD). 11
Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the accessibility of public sector bodies' websites, Brussels, 3.12.2012, COM (2012) 721 final, 2012/0340 (COD). 12
Roadmap, European Accessibility Act: legislative initiative to improve accessibility of goods and services in the Internal Market. 13
Joined Cases C‑335/11 and C‑337/11, Jette Ring v. Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab and Lone Skouboe Werge v. Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, judgment of 11 April 2013; For the previous approach to disability that the CJEU had adopted, which is close to the medical model response to disability see, Case C-­‐13/05, Chacón Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA, judgment of 11 July 2006. 9 certainly contribute to the process of change. The legal research can contribute to the
identification of problems and it can provide solutions to those problems. In the case
of accessibility, disability researchers can provide a framework on the way the
UNCRPD should be interpreted. This will clarify what were the intentions of the
drafters of the Convention and, thus, it will identify the requirements that the State
Parties of the Convention should take to fulfil these requirements. The same applies to
EU law and the UNCRPD. Legal researchers can examine and explain the challenges
and the consequences of the implementation of the Convention by the EU so that the
Member States of the EU and the EU itself will be able to fully comprehend what are
the appropriate actions that should be taken with a view to fulfil the requirements of
the Convention and how the implementation of the Convention will be coordinated
between the EU and its Member States. This framework, though, should somehow
reach the ears of the stakeholders on accessibility. Otherwise it will not have any
impact on the real world. In that regard, it is important to involve stakeholders on
accessibility in the dissemination of this framework via their participation in
conferences, seminars and other academic activities. Thus, raising awareness on this
issue is essential. It is also important to use the outcomes of research to train the
stakeholders on accessibility so that they will be fully aware of the actions that they
can take or lobby for. Apart from the stakeholders, people that are responsible for
guaranteeing remedies with regard to accessibility, such as judges or administrative
committees should be trained as well. Lastly, legal researchers can contribute to the
process of change from an advisory role either for the state or for representative
organisations and other stakeholders on accessibility. From such post, researchers can
use their work to influence policy-making or the arguments of the disability
movement and its representatives.
The DREAM (Disability Rights Expanding Accessible Markets) network provided us,
researchers with the opportunity to receive training on different academic disciplines
and in subjects that are relevant to disability. These training activities provide us with
different perspectives on disability that could be useful to our own research. In
addition, it promoted the dialogue between the DREAM researchers and the more
experienced scholars and between the DREAM researchers themselves on how to
better contribute to the process of change. It also encouraged the researchers to take
their own initiatives to promote their work, the network and to raise awareness on
10 disability issues. An example of such initiative was the DREAM panel that G.
Anthony Giannoumis, Ieva Eskyte and I organised that was part of the 20th
International Conference of Europeanists. Our panel was entitled ‘Disability Policy in
Crisis – Legal, Public Policy and Practical Approaches’. It aimed to discuss the
challenges that the implementation of the Convention faces due to the current
economic climate and to raise awareness on disability rights by mainstreaming the
disability agenda in a broader multidisciplinary conference. Lastly, the DREAM
project brought us in contact with people outside of the academic world. It involved
people from both the policy field and from the disability movement. This involvement
gave us the opportunity to learn about the obstacles to the process of change and the
most appropriate way to overcome those obstacles.
Apart from exchanging views with people from the disability movement and
representative organisations, the DREAM network gave us the opportunity to
undertake secondments at disability organisations. I had the privilege to work for the
European Disability Forum (EDF). During this secondment I worked on two subjects.
The first was identifying the legal criteria that should be used to determine which
products should be included in the European Accessibility Act. The second was
analysing the factors (legal or political) that can contribute to the discussion of
whether the EU or the Member-States should take action to implement the
requirements of Article 9 UNCRPD, in the field of shared competences. Apart from
these subjects, I provided advice on other subjects of EU law as well. Lastly, I made a
presentation on the results of my research at EDF by the end of my secondment in the
context of a training event on the European Accessibility Act.
My experience at EDF was very enriching. I had the opportunity to experience the
challenges that the disability advocates face in attempting to make change. I also
came in contact with several people with disabilities and heard their very interesting
personal stories. As a result, I gained a greater understanding of the challenges and the
barriers that they encounter in their lives, the importance that their place in the
principles of the Convention and their belief that the Convention can contribute
immensely to the process of change that is needed in the disability policy. Lastly, my
time at EDF gave me the opportunity to experience from close distance the EU
legislative process and to contribute to the process of change. I was fortunate enough
to be at the organisation at the time where the impact assessment for the Accessibility
11 Act was underway. Thus, I was able to examine the challenges that this process
entails, the attitudinal barriers that the supporters to disability rights encounter, and
the compromises that have to be made so that the process of change continues to
move forward. I also had the opportunity to make my own contribution to this process
of change in a more direct way than I was able to before as an academic researcher.
4.
Tentative Outcomes & Recommendations.
As the final outcomes of my research are not fully formed, in this section I provide
some thoughts about the interpretation of Article 9 UNCRPD and the implementation
of the obligations of this article by the EU. As far as the first part of my research is
concerned, there are several points that should be made.

The fact that accessibility in the context of Article 9 UNCRPD is a
progressively realised obligation, does not justify the inaction of governments
with regard to the implementation of this obligation. The progressive
realisation of accessibility entails several obligations that should be
implemented immediately, such as, the obligation to take ‘deliberate, concrete
and targeted’ steps to implement Article 9 UNCRPD, the obligation to use the
maximum of the available resources for its implementation, the obligation to
improve conditions in relation to disability accessibility, the obligation to
abstain from adopting deliberately retrogressive measures with regard to the
level of accessibility, the obligation to monitor the implementation of Article 9
UNCRPD, the obligation to device strategies and programmes for its
implementation, and the obligation to ensure the minimum core level of
Article 9 UNCRPD.

Lastly, the obligations of Article 9 UNCRPD do not only apply to the public
domain but also the private sphere. The notion behind this statement is that it
does not matter who owns the facility or the service or the good that is
required by Article 9 UNCRPD to become accessible to people with
disabilities, but the persons that use them. Thus, privately owned facilities and
services are required to become accessible as well, as long as, they are open or
provided to the public.
12 All these issues could be potentially addressed and clarified by the General Comment
on Accessibility that it is currently under consideration by the Committee on the
Rights of People with Disabilities. With regard to the second part of my research
project it is important to note the following:

The nature of the UNCRPD as a mixed agreement of the EU implies that the
Member States and the EU are required to implement the obligations of the
Convention in the areas where they have exclusive competence to take
legislative measures, while at the same time, they are required to closely
cooperate with a view to implement the obligations of the Convention in the
fields where they share the competence to take legislative actions. This close
cooperation can be realised through a mechanism that will both monitor the
implementation of the requirements of the UNCRPD and determine which
actions should be taken by whom (either the EU or the Member States) so as
to avoid any overlap in their actions and to guarantee the speedy
implementation of those requirements.

With the exception of one legislative measure14, all the EU measures that
consider accessibility are mainstreaming measures. These measures are quite
often insufficient to guarantee the rights of people with disabilities for
several reasons. First, the mainstreaming of accessibility considerations
might not be comprehensive enough to guarantee the accessibility of the
good or service that is regulated. Second, the references of accessibility in the
mainstreaming instruments might not be strong enough to oblige the Member
States to ensure accessibility, but only to encourage such actions. The last
reason for the failure of the mainstreaming measures to ensure accessibility is
the lack of monitoring of these measures. The legal instruments that
mainstream disability considerations might address such a great amount of
issues that accessibility quite often is not addressed and examined in the
reports that study the implementation of such measures. This fact shows that
accessibility is not among the priorities that should be addressed in such
instruments. Nevertheless, when the measures are comprehensive, provide
concrete obligations with regard to accessibility and are appropriately
14
Regulation (EC) of the European Parliament and of the Council No 1107/2006 of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air. 13 monitored, like in the case of the passenger rights Regulations15, the
outcomes are successful with regards to the implementation of the
accessibility considerations.

Lastly, with regard to the Court of Justice of the EU, it is important to note
that despite the progress that it has made with regard to the definition of
disability, as I have mentioned above, it has failed to examine in a
comprehensive manner the issue of the direct application of the provisions of
the Convention.16 Instead it preferred to just read the text of the Convention
at face value without further interpretation and reject such possibility, despite
the fact that through appropriate interpretation some obligations might be
clear and unconditional enough to be directly applicable. For example, as I
have mentioned above, several obligations to the State Parties with regard to
accessibility should be immediately implemented and, thus, they might be
clear and unconditional enough to be directly invoked against the EU or the
Member States by individuals.
The DREAM network provided all its early-stage researchers with a great opportunity
to conduct research under the best possible environment. The researchers received
high-level multidisciplinary training. They had the opportunity to engage in
conversation with academics of the highest calibre and with important stakeholders on
disability matters. The researchers had also the opportunity to experience the process
of change from a close distance during their secondments and support directly the
actions of the disability movement. All these experiences and training gave us the
opportunity to see our work not merely as an academic exercise but more importantly
as an opportunity for substantive reform and change. The DREAM network equipped
us with the tools to disseminate our research outcomes and spread the message of
change and reform of the disability policies according to the UNCRPD to the world.
Now, it is our responsibility to bring this message to the world with the hope that it
will have the maximum possible impact to the lives of people with disabilities.
15
Regulation (EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council No 181/2011 of 16 February 2011 concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport and amending Regulation (EC) of the European Parliament and of the Council No 2006/2004; Regulation (EU) No 1371/2007 of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations; Regulation (EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council No 1177/2010 of 24 November 2010 concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004. 16
Case C-­‐363/12, Z. v. The Board of management of a community school, judgment of 18 March 2014. 14