The Ombudsman's Petition to the Constitutional Court on the amended regulation of the obstacle-clearance of the public transport

AJB-702/2013

The Ombudsman's Petition to the Constitutional Court on the amended regulation of the obstacle-clearance of the public transport

The amendment of the Act on person transportation services contains only the gradual implementation of the obstacle-clearance of the public transport instead of a concrete deadline. This is incompatible with international treaties that Hungary adopted as well and it violates the requirement of free choice of place of residence. Consequently, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights asked the Constitutional Court to review the provision.

The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights established that the Act on person transportation services does not offer adequate guarantees and an adequate legal basis for carrying out the obstacle-clearance of vehicles, railway stations, stations and bus stops in the foreseeable future and for establishing this way access to the public transport with equal opportunities.

In the reasoning of his petition to the Constitutional Court, ombudsman Máté Szabó recalls that having regard to the provisions of the Basic Law and the former practice of the Constitutional Court, the Hungarian legal regulation has to comply with the international treaties to which Hungary is a party, too. However, the amendment is contrary to an international treaty as it violates the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, codified by Hungary as well. Consequently, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights asked the Constitutional Court to establish the incompatibility of the contested provision with an international treaty and to annul that.

In addition, the amended regulation also violates human dignity, the principle of the freedom of movement and of the free choice of place of residence derived from the Basic Law.  Namely, in its present form, the Act does not guarantee and does not even make it enforceable the obstacle-clearance of the means of public transport and stations as soon as possible. The fact that gradualness is set out in the Act in place of the former prescription of a deadline for the obstacle-clearance means a regression from the institutional protection already achieved by the state. Such a change is, however, possible only on the basis of a particular reason in compliance with the continuous practice of the Constitutional Court. Nevertheless, this particular reason does not exist in this case. Consequently, the ombudsman asked the Constitutional Court to review the provision from this aspect as well.

Download