European Committee of Social Rights

European Committee of Social Rights
Comit europen des Droits sociaux

Confidential1
European Action of the Disabled (AEH) v. France
Complaint No. 81/2012
REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
Strasbourg, 11 September 2013

Introduction
1. Pursuant to Article 82 of the Protocol providing for a system of
collective complaints (the Protocol), the European Committee of
Social Rights, a committee of independent experts of the European
Social Charter (the Committee) transmits to the Committee of
Ministers its report2 on Complaint No. 81/2012. The report contains
the Committees decision on the merits of the complaint (adopted
on 11 September 2013). The decision on admissibility (adopted on
12 September 2012) is appended.
2. The Protocol came into force on 1 July 1998. It has been ratified
by Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France,
Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and
Sweden. Furthermore, Bulgaria and Slovenia are also bound by this
procedure pursuant to Article D of the Revised Social Charter of
1996.
3. The Committees procedure was based on the provisions of the
Rules of 29 March 2004 which it adopted at its 201st session and
revised on 12 May 2005 at its 207th session, on 20 February 2009
at its 234th session and on 10 May 2011 at its 250th session.
4. The report has been transmitted to the Committee of Minister on
4 October 2013. It is recalled that pursuant to Article 82 of the
Protocol, this report will not be made public until after the
Committee of Ministers has adopted a resolution, or no later than
four months after it has been transmitted to the Committee of
Ministers, namely 5 February 2014.

DECISION ON THE MERITS
11 September 2013
The European Committee of Social Rights, committee of
independent experts established under Article 25 of the European
Social Charter ("the Committee), during its 266th session
attended by:
Luis JIMENA QUESADA, President
Monika SCHLACHTER, Vice-President
Petros STANGOS, Vice-President
Lauri LEPPIK
Birgitta NYSTRM
Rhan IIK
Alexandru ATHANASIU
Jarna PETMAN
Elena MACHULSKAYA
Giuseppe PALMISANO
Karin LUKAS
Jozsef HAJDU
Marcin WUJCZYK
Assisted by Henrik KRISTENSEN, Deputy Executive Secretary,
Having deliberated on 5 July and 11September 2013,
On the basis of the report presented by Petros STANGOS,
Delivers the following decision adopted on this last date:
PROCEDURE
1. The complaint presented by European Action of the Disabled

(AEH) was registered on 3 April 2012.
2. The complainant organisation alleges that France fails to
guarantee the right to education of children and adolescents with
autism and the right to vocational training of young adults with
autism, in breach of Articles 10 (right to vocational training) and
15 (right of persons with disabilities to vocational training,
rehabilitation and social integration), read alone and/or in
conjunction with Article E (non-discrimination) of the revised
European Social Charter (the Charter) because of the difference
in treatment, in the education and vocational training fields,
between persons with autism and persons with other disabilities.
3. The Committee declared the complaint admissible on 12
September 2012.
4. In accordance with Article 7 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Protocol
providing for a system of collective complaints (the Protocol) and
with the Committees decision on the admissibility of the complaint,
on 19 September 2012, the Deputy Executive Secretary sent the
text of the admissibility decision to the French Government (the
Government) and to AEH. On the same day, he also sent the
decision to the Contracting Parties to the Protocol and the states
that have made a declaration in accordance with Article D2, and
to the organisations referred to in Article 272 of the European
Social Charter of 1961.
5. In accordance with Article 311 of the Committees Rules (the
Rules), the Committee set a deadline of 31 October 2012 for
presentation of the Government's submissions on the merits. At
the Governments request, this deadline was extended to 30
November 2012. The Governments submissions on the merits of
the complaint were registered by the Secretariat on 30 November
2012.
6. In accordance with Article 312 of the Rules, the President of
the Committee gave the complainant organisation until 15
February 2013 to submit a response to the Governments
submissions. AEHs response was registered by the Secretariat on
4 February 2013 and forwarded to the Government on 26 February
2013.
THE PARTIES SUBMISSIONS
1 The complainant organisation
7. AEH alleges that, by failing to provide autistic children and
adolescents with schooling, which is nonetheless compulsory,
France is in breach of its obligations under Article 151 of the
Charter. Furthermore, by failing to foster access to vocational
training for young adults with autism, France fails to fulfil its
obligation to promote, as necessary, the technical and vocational
training of all persons, including the handicapped, as laid down in
Article 101 of the Charter, and to provide or promote adequate
and readily available training facilities for adult workers as
required by Article 103, sub-paragraph a, of the Charter.
According to the complainant organisation, the fact that French
persons with autism do not enjoy the right to vocational education

and training which has been granted to people with disabilities
constitutes discrimination on the ground of a disability, which is in
breach of Article E of the revised Charter.
8. AEH asks the Committee to find a violation of all the provisions
referred to above.
2 The respondent Government
9. The Government asserts that it has made considerable financial
and practical efforts to provide and promote education and
vocational training for persons with autism and other pervasive
development disorders (PDDs), making measurable progress over
a reasonable timeframe despite a difficult budgetary context.
10. The Government therefore asks the Committee to find that
there has been no violation of Articles 101, 103 or 151 of the
Charter, read alone or in conjunction with Article E.
RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC LAW
A Domestic law and case-law
11. In their submissions the parties refer to the following
provisions of domestic law:
12. Law No. 2005-102 of 11 February 2005 on equal rights
and opportunities, participation and citizenship of persons with
disabilities referred to as the Disability Act.
13. Deriving from this law, Interministerial Circular No. 2005124 of 8 March 2005 (Official Education Bulletin No. 15 of 14
April 2005) on provision for persons suffering from autism or
pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs), which provides:
The legal provisions on the schooling of children with
disabilities, as consolidated by Law No. 2005-102 of 11
February 2005 on equal rights and opportunities,
participation and citizenship of persons with disabilities,
apply fully to children suffering from autism or PDDs.
14. The Education Code
Article L111-1 of the Education Code
The right to education is secured to all so as to
allow all individuals to develop their personality,
increase their level of initial and further training,
take their place in society and the world of work, and
exercise their citizenship.
All children shall have the right to a school

education, complementing the actions of their
families and contributing to their upbringing.
To fulfil its obligations under Articles L. 111-1 and L.
111-2, the public education service shall provide
school-based, vocational or higher education to
children, adolescents and adults with a disability or
an incapacitating health condition. In its fields of
competence, the state shall provide the necessary
financial and human resources for the mainstream
education of children, adolescents and adults with
disabilities.
All children or adolescents with a disability or an
incapacitating health condition shall be enrolled in
the school, or the establishment such as those
referred to in Article L. 351-1, closest to their home,
which shall then become their reference
establishment.
If, in the context of their personal schooling plans,
their needs call for them to be taught in a specialised
facility, they may be enrolled by the competent
administrative authority in another school or an
establishment such as those referred to in Article L.
351-1, on a proposal by their reference
establishment and with their parents or legal
representatives consent. Such enrolments shall not
prevent them from returning to their reference
establishment.
Likewise, children and adolescents provided for in
one of the establishments or services referred to in
paragraph I, sub-paragraph 2 of Article L. 312-1 of
the Social Welfare and Family Code or one of the
establishments referred to in Book I of the sixth part
of the Public Health Code may be enrolled in a school
or in one of the establishments referred to in Article
L. 351-1 of this Code other than their reference
establishment, near the establishment providing for
them. The arrangements allowing for such
enrolments and attendance shall be established by
an agreement between the education authorities and
the medico-social or health establishment concerned.
If necessary, special distance teaching arrangements
shall be offered by an establishment operating under
the authority of the Ministry of Education.
This teaching shall be provided before compulsory
schooling age if the family so requests.
It shall be supplemented, where necessary, by

educational, psychological, educational, social,
medical and paramedical activities co-ordinated
under the personal plan provided for by Article
L.112-2.
Where mainstream schooling has been decided on by
the commission referred to in Article L. 146-9 of the
Social Welfare and Family Code but the conditions of
access to the reference establishment make this
impossible, the additional costs incurred by
transporting the disabled child or adolescent to an
establishment further away shall be covered by the
local or regional authority responsible for making
such premises accessible. This provision shall not
preclude the application of Article L. 242-11 of the
Social Welfare and Family Code when the
inaccessibility of the reference establishment is not
the cause of the extra transport costs.
To ensure that they are offered a suitable education
programme, all children, adolescents and adults with
disabilities shall be entitled to an assessment of their
skills and needs and the measures taken as part of
this programme, according to a schedule adapted to
their situation. This assessment shall be carried out
by the multidisciplinary team referred to in Article
L. 146-8 of the Social Welfare and Family Code. It
shall be a requirement for the childs parents or legal
representative to be asked to express their views on
this occasion.
Depending on the results of the assessment, each
child, adolescent or adult with a disability and his or
her family shall be presented with an education
programme forming part of a personal schooling plan
comprising the necessary adjustments, giving
precedence, wherever possible, to education in the
mainstream school system. The personal schooling
plan shall be one of the components of the
compensation plan referred to in Article L. 146-8 of
the Social Welfare and Family Code. It shall set out
the arrangements for schooling, which shall be coordinated with the educational support measures set
forth in the compensation plan.
The public higher education service shall provide
scientific, cultural and vocational training.
For this purpose, the public service shall:
1 Admit students and offer them guidance;
2 Provide initial training;

3 Contribute to further training;
4 Train trainers.
Guidance for students shall include information on
the organisation of studies, career opportunities and
the possibility of transferring from one course to
another.
Further training shall be designed for all persons,
regardless of whether they have work. It shall be
organised to meet individual or collective needs and
include opportunities for adults to attend initial
training courses together with special vocational or
cultural training courses.
Children and adolescents with a disability or an
incapacitating health condition shall attend infants
and primary schools and the establishments referred
to in Articles L. 213-2, L. 214-6, L. 422-1, L. 422-2
and L. 442-1 of this Code and Articles L. 811-8 and
L. 813-1 of the Rural and Sea Fishing Code, if
necessary in a specialised facility, where this method
of schooling most suits the pupils needs. Parents
shall be closely involved in the educational decision
and may be assisted by a person of their choice. The
decision shall be taken by the commission referred
to in Article L. 146-9 of the Social Welfare and
Family Code, in agreement with the childs parents
or legal representative. Failing this, the conciliation
and appeal procedures provided for in Articles L.
146-10 and L. 241-9 of the same code shall apply.
At all events, where there is a legitimate need, pupils
shall be granted the necessary additional assistance
and support.
Teaching shall also be provided by qualified staff
attached to the ministry responsible for education
where the situation of a child or an adolescent with a
disability or an incapacitating health condition
requires them to stay in a medico-social or health
establishment. Such staff shall either be state
teachers made available to these establishments
under arrangements established by decree or private
teachers working under contracts negotiated
between the establishment and the state in
accordance with the arrangements provided for in
part IV of book IV.
A decree of the Conseil dEtat shall establish the
arrangements by which teachers working in state
establishments attached to the ministry responsible
for persons with disabilities or possessing
qualifications issued by the latter shall also provide

such teaching.
Article D351-3 of the Education Code
All children and adolescents with a disability, as
defined in Article L. 114 of the Social Welfare and
Family Code, shall be enrolled in the school or the
establishment such as those referred to in the first
paragraph of Article L.351-1 of this Code closest to
their home. This school or establishment shall
constitute their reference establishment.
The pupils education shall be provided primarily in
the mainstream schooling system, in his or her
reference establishment or, where appropriate, in
another school or another of the establishments
referred to in the first paragraph of Article L. 351-1
of this Code, where the child shall be enrolled if his
or her personal schooling plan, as referred to in
Article D. 351-5 of this Code, makes it necessary to
resort to a special facility.
Pupils shall continue to be enrolled in their reference
establishment if, because of a health problem, they
are forced to make a temporary break in their
schooling and be taught at home, making use where
necessary of special distance learning arrangements.
They shall also continue to be enrolled in their
reference establishment if they are provided for in
one of the establishments or services mentioned in
paragraph I, sub-paragraph 2 of Article L. 312-1 of
the Social Welfare and Family Code or one of the
establishments referred to in Book I of the sixth part
of the Public Health Code.
In such circumstances, they may be taught entirely
within the teaching unit of the establishment
providing for them, as defined in Article D. 351-17 of
this Code, or on an alternating basis, dividing their
time between this teaching unit and their reference
establishment or between the teaching unit and a
school or establishment with which the
establishment providing for them has negotiated a
co-operation agreement under the arrangements
provided for in Article D. 351-18 of this Code. In the
latter case, the pupil may be enrolled in this school
or establishment.
At all events, the arrangements for the organisation
of pupils educations shall be set out in their personal
schooling plan or in their individual care plan, as
defined in Article D. 351-9 of this Code. Where
appropriate, this plan shall establish the

arrangements for pupils to return to their reference
establishment.
The educational follow-up team referred to in the
second paragraph of Article L. 112-2-1, which must
comprise the pupil or his or her parents or legal
representative, together with the pupils reference
teacher as defined in Article D. 351-12, shall
facilitate the implementation and supervise the
follow-up of the personal schooling plan of each pupil
with a disability. At least once a year, it shall assess
the plan and its implementation and propose the
necessary adjustments to guarantee the continuity
of the childs education. Assessments of this sort
may be organised at the request of pupils, their
parents or legal representative, the educational team
of the school or establishment concerned or the
director of their medico-social or health
establishment if adjustments seem essential in the
course of the school year.
The educational follow-up team shall inform the
Commission for the Rights and Self-Reliance of
People with Disabilities about any problem capable of
undermining the continued implementation of the
pupils personal schooling plan.
Where necessary, it shall present the commission
with any revision of the pupils educational choices it
considers advisable, subject to the consent of the
pupil if he or she has reached majority or, otherwise,
of his or her parents or legal representative. During
meetings of the educational follow-up team, the
pupils parents may be assisted by a person of their
choice or be represented by a third party.
Depending on the results of the assessment, each
child, adolescent or adult with a disability and his or
her family shall be presented with an education
programme forming part of a personal schooling plan
comprising the necessary adjustments, giving
precedence, wherever possible, to education in the
mainstream school system. The personal schooling
plan shall be one of the components of the
compensation plan referred to in Article L. 146-8 of
the Social Welfare and Family Code. It shall set out
the arrangements for schooling, which shall be coordinated with the educational support measures set
forth in the compensation plan.
15. The Social Welfare Code
Article L146-8 of the Social Welfare Code
A multidisciplinary team shall assess the compensatory

needs of persons with disabilities and their degree of
permanent incapacity on the basis of their life projects and
benchmarks established by regulations and shall propose a
personal disability compensation plan. It shall hear persons
with disabilities or, if they are still minors, their parents or
legal representatives, either on its own initiative or at their
request. As soon as they are capable of forming their own
views, children with disabilities shall themselves be heard
by the multidisciplinary team. The multidisciplinary team
shall go to the persons home, either on its own initiative or
at the request of the person with a disability. During
assessments, persons with disabilities, their parents or their
legal representative may be assisted by a person of their
choice. The membership of the multidisciplinary team may
vary according to the nature of the disability or disabilities
of the person whose compensatory needs or degree of
permanent incapacity it is assessing.
Where necessary and if the persons concerned so request,
the multidisciplinary team shall seek the assistance of the
establishments or services referred to in sub-paragraph 11
of paragraph I of Article L. 312-1 or of facilities designated
as reference centres for a rare disease or group of rare
diseases.
Article L246-1 of the Social Welfare Code
"Any person with a disability resulting from autistic
syndrome or related disorders, regardless of their age, shall
benefit from multidisciplinary provision catering for his or
her specific needs and difficulties. Such provision shall be
adapted to the condition and age of the individual, subject
to the resources available. It may be educational,
instructional, therapeutic or social."
16. The following domestic judicial decisions are also relevant:
- Decision of the Conseil dEtat of 15 December 2010 (No.
344729)
depriving a child, notably if disabled, of all possibility of
receiving a school education or an appropriate school-type
training in accordance with the arrangements made in the
relevant legislation to ensure compliance with the
constitutional requirement of equal access to education may
constitute a serious and clearly unlawful infringement of a
fundamental freedom, within the meaning of Article L. 5212 of the Code of Administrative Justice, warranting the
intervention of the urgent applications judge .
- Decision of the Conseil dEtat of 8 April 2009,
Laruelle (No. 311434) concerning the states liability for
negligence because of the failure to provide schooling for
children with disabilities:
the State's failure constitutes a fault such as to

incur its liability, without it being possible for the
authorities to rely on the arguments that there is a
shortage of educational facilities and that the parents
of children with disabilities receive compensatory
benefits .
- Decision of the Conseil dEtat of 16 May 2011
(No. 318501) concerning provision for children with
autism obligations of the state:
"Any person with a disability resulting from autistic
syndrome or related disorders, regardless of their
age, shall benefit from multidisciplinary provision
catering for his or her specific needs and difficulties.
- Decision of the Marseille Administrative Court
of Appeal of 31 January 2008 (No. 05MA01886)
.. The state has a legal obligation to offer children
with disabilities an education at least equivalent,
bearing in mind their personal needs, to that
provided for children attending a mainstream school
.
B International standards and instruments
17. AEH makes particular reference to the following articles of the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities of 13 December 2006, which has been ratified by
France, and the Optional Protocol thereto:
Article 7 Children with disabilities
1. States Parties shall take all necessary measures to
ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities
of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an
equal basis with other children.
2. In all actions concerning children with disabilities,
the best interests of the child shall be a primary
consideration.
3. States Parties shall ensure that children with
disabilities have the right to express their views
freely on all matters affecting them, their views
being given due weight in accordance with their age
and maturity, on an equal basis with other children,
and to be provided with disability and ageappropriate assistance to realize that right.
Article 24 Education
1. States Parties recognize the right of persons with
disabilities to education. With a view to realizing this right
without discrimination and on the basis of equal

opportunity, States Parties shall ensure an inclusive
education system at all levels and lifelong learning directed
to:
(a) The full development of human potential and sense of
dignity and self-worth, and the strengthening of respect for
human rights, fundamental freedoms and human diversity;
(b) The development by persons with disabilities of their
personality, talents and creativity, as well as their mental
and physical abilities, to their fullest potential;
(c) Enabling persons with disabilities to participate
effectively in a free society.
2. In realizing this right, States Parties shall ensure that:
(a) Persons with disabilities are not excluded from the
general education system on the basis of disability, and that
children with disabilities are not excluded from free and
compulsory primary education, or from secondary
education, on the basis of disability;
(b) Persons with disabilities can access an inclusive, quality
and free primary education and secondary education on an
equal basis with others in the communities in which they
live;
(c) Reasonable accommodation of the individuals
requirements is provided;
(d) Persons with disabilities receive the support required,
within the general education system, to facilitate their
effective education;
(e) Effective individualized support measures are provided
in environments that maximize academic and social
development, consistent with the goal of full inclusion.
()
5. States Parties shall ensure that persons with disabilities
are able to access general tertiary education, vocational
training, adult education and lifelong learning without
discrimination and on an equal basis with others. To this
end, States Parties shall ensure that reasonable
accommodation is provided to persons with disabilities.
OTHER SOURCES
18. AEH refers to the following documentation:
-- National Ethics Advisory Committee for Life Sciences and Health
Opinion on care for persons with autism in France, report No. 47

of 10 January 19963
-- Report by Mr Jean-Franois Chossy, MP for the Loire, The
situation of autism in France: needs and prospects, presented to
the Prime Minister in September 2003, p. 754
-- IGAS, The placement of French people with disabilities in
foreign establishments, Report 2005-143, September 20055
-- Children and adolescents suffering from autism and related
syndromes provided for by medico-social services and
establishments, DRESS study No. 396, April 20056
-- Promoting the professional integration of young people with
disabilities, report by the MP from the Gard, Yvan Lachaud,
February 20067 -- National Advisory Committee on Human Rights,
Opinion on schooling of children with disabilities, 6 November
20088
-- The situation in France of children and adults with autism,
Opinion No. 102, 2007, of the National Ethics Advisory Committee,
rapporteur: J.-C. Ameissen9
-- Report by Ccile Gallez, MP from the Nord dpartement,
"Provision for the elderly and the disabled in Belgium", February
200910
-- 2010 Report of the National Disabled Persons Advisory
Committee, presented to the Minister of Solidarity and Social
Cohesion, Ms Roselyne Bachelot, on 16 May 201111
-- Recommended best professional practices Promoting highquality care for people with autism or other pervasive
developmental disorders, ANESM, January 201012
-- Schooling for Children with Disabilities, Report by Paul Blanc,
member of the Senate for Pyrnes-Orientales, presented to the
President of the Republic in May 201113
-- "Evaluation of the impact of the Autism Plan for 2008-2010",
report to Roselyne Bachelot, Minister for Solidarity and Social
Cohesion, by Valrie Ltard, former minister and Senator for the
"Nord" dpartement, December 2011, submitted on 12 January
201214
-- Autism and other pervasive developmental disorders: coordinated educational and therapeutic practices in children and
adolescents, recommended best practices, National Health
Authority (HAS), March 201215, which recommends the method of
caring for children and adolescents with autism in specialised
institutions, drawing mostly on a developmental and educational
approach to autism:
Behavioural and developmental treatment are

intended to change the behavioural characteristics of
autism spectrum disorders. Their aim is to improve
childrens skills in all areas to facilitate their social
integration, their emotional self-regulation, their
daily lives and their learning abilities. This type of
treatment is referred to as comprehensive
treatment because it targets several areas of child
functioning. Behavioural treatment takes its origins
from the systematic application of treatment based
on the principles of learning theory, in other words
the method called applied behaviour analysis, most
frequently referred to as ABA. This consists in
analysing behaviour to understand the laws by which
the environment influences it, then to develop
strategies to change it. Teaching materials are
chosen by the adult, who instigates all interaction
during the sessions. Reinforcement is external to the
task being taught (positive reinforcement) and
selected in advance by the adult. It would be useful
to carry out additional research on intrinsic
motivations.
19. The Government also mentions:
-- Opinion of the Economic, Social and Environmental Council of 9
October 2012 (The economic and social cost of autism).
20. Autisms definition as a disability and, in particular, the
importance of the community making proper provision for it and
raising awareness about it, are mentioned by the following sources,
cited by AEH:
-- the 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of
Diseases and Related Health Problems (known as ICD-10),
published by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which defines
autism as follows:
A type of pervasive developmental disorder that is
defined by: (a) the presence of abnormal or impaired
development that is manifest before the age of three
years, and (b) the characteristic type of abnormal
functioning in all the three areas of psychopathology:
reciprocal social interaction, communication, and
restricted, stereotyped, repetitive behaviour.
-- Opinion of the Economic, Social and Environmental Council of 6
October 2012, as requested by the National Assembly, on the
economic and social cost of autism, which includes the following
comments in its introduction:
It was the recognition of autism as a disability in
1995, which brought the issue of autistic persons
and their family out of the private, family and
medical sphere and made it a matter of concern to
the whole of society. However, this process of
drawing autism out of the purely private sphere is

not yet complete. Autistic people are social beings,
who, at every stage of their lives and whatever their
level of independence, will raise questions about the
ability of their physical and social environment to
cater for their differences. The economic crisis that
our countries are currently experiencing may
intensify the rejection of people who are not
considered normal and shift the financial and social
burden of support onto people with autism
themselves and their families. It is for this reason
that all educational support in the behavioural
sphere is still charged to families in the absence of
collective provision for a sufficient number of cases.
The National Assembly should ask itself what place it
wants to give to autists and their families in society.
Does it want them to be fully integrated or fully
segregated? Assuming it chooses the former, this
can only be achieved by investing in practices which
meet their compensatory needs. This investment
represents something more than just a cost because
it helps to make the person concerned more
independent and liberates his or her family at last to
take up work and become a member of the
community .
-- UN chief marks Autism Awareness Day with call for greater
support to those affected16. Message of 1 April 2011 from the UN
Secretary General, Mr Ban Ki-moon, concerning World Autism
Awareness Day, on 2 April:
By designating 2 April as World Autism Awareness
Day, the United Nations General Assembly has
helped to galvanize international efforts to promote
greater understanding about autism. This years
observance is being marked with lectures, briefings,
screenings, musical performances, video
conferences, art installations and other activities
carried out by the United Nations family and a full
constellation of partners. I welcome this growing
international chorus of voices calling for action to
enable children and persons with autism to lead full
and meaningful lives. This is not a far-off dream; it is
a reality that can be attained by promoting positive
perceptions about autism, as well as a greater social
understanding of this growing challenge. I have seen
what caring people who work tirelessly for this goal
can achieve. Last year, the United Nations hosted a
rock concert by Rudely Interrupted, whose members
have various disabilities, including on the autism
spectrum. They brought the audience to its feet with
warm, communicative songs and showed, through
the sheer joy of their performance, how much people
with disabilities can offer the world. The words of
lead singer Rory Burnside were especially inspiring.
My advice, he said, to kids who have some form
of disability is: dont let it stop you. Use it as your
strength; dont use it as your weakness. One red

light can lead to a whole bunch of green lights, with
a few orange lights thrown in. And the red lights are
just a bit of a test. There are definitely more green
and orange. On World Autism Awareness Day, let us
capture and share this spirit, and let us intensify
global efforts to ensure that children and persons
with autism everywhere can benefit from the
supportive environment they need to reach their full
potential and contribute to society.
THE LAW
I. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS
21. The Committee notes that AEHs complaints relate to Articles
10 and 15 and Article E read in conjunction with each of these, but
it fails to explain which of its complaints come under which of these
provisions.
22. The reason for this is that the material scope of Articles 10 and
15 overlap as they both apply to the situation of children and
adults with autism.
23. However, it is the Committees duty to examine each complaint
lodged under the provision of the Charter to which it primarily
relates.
24. On this subject, while the initial and continue vocational
training of persons with autism is covered both by Article 10, which
applies to all people, and by Article 15, which applies to persons
with disabilities, the purpose of the two articles, though
complementary, is different.
25. The aim of Article 10 is to ensure that effective and appropriate
vocational training is provided for the entire population. Paragraphs
1 and 3 of this article establish the rule that everyone (including
people with disabilities but not just them) must have access to
vocational training, with due regard for their needs. To a certain
extent therefore these provisions are regarded as being dependent
on individual needs or on the general needs of the labour market;
they also relate mainly to the means of access to vocational
training.
26. As to Article 15, the Committee would point out that the
authors of the Charter made significant changes to the substance
of Article 15 compared to the text of the 1961 Charter.
27. The explanatory report on the revised Charter describes the
new scope of Article 15 as follows:
63. The protection of the disabled afforded by this Article
has been extended as compared to that afforded by Article
15 of the Charter [of 1961], as it no longer applies only to
vocational rehabilitation but to the right of persons with
disabilities to independent social integration, personal

autonomy and participation in the life of the community in
general. The words effective exercise of the right to
independence contained in the introductory sentence to the
provision imply, inter alia, that disabled persons should
have the right to an independent life.
64. Under this provision Parties must aim to develop a
coherent policy for people with disabilities. The provision
takes a modern approach to how the protection of the
disabled shall be carried out, for example by providing that
guidance, education and vocational training be provided
whenever possible in the framework of general schemes
rather than in specialised institutions, an approach which
corresponds to that of Recommendation No. R (92) 6 of the
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It not only
provides the possibility, but to a large extent obliges Parties
to adopt positive measures for the disabled.
28. According to the wording of Article 15 itself, its aim is to secure
the right of persons with disabilities to independence, social
integration and participation in the life of the community. Each
paragraph of Article 15 comes together to achieve this objective.
29. Consequently, Article 15 treats vocational training of persons
with disabilities as one of the means of achieving the ultimate
aims of independence, integration and participation.
30. For this reason, the Committee will examine the complainant
organisations complaints under Article 15.
I. THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 151 OF THE
CHARTER
31. Article 151 of the Charter reads:
Article 15 The right of persons with disabilities to
independence, social integration and participation in
the life of the community
Part I: Disabled persons have the right to independence,
social integration and participation in the life of the
community.
Part II: With a view to ensuring to persons with disabilities,
irrespective of age and the nature and origin of their
disabilities, the effective exercise of the right to
independence, social integration and participation in the life
of the community, the Parties undertake, in particular:
1. to take the necessary measures to provide persons with
disabilities with guidance, education and vocational training
in the framework of general schemes wherever possible or,
where this is not possible, through specialised bodies, public
or private.
A. Submissions of the parties

1. The complainant organisation
a) The inadequacy of schooling for children with autism
32. AEH states that it is compulsory in France for all children
between the ages of 6 and 16 to go to school. Furthermore, the
Conseil d'Etat has held that "depriving a child, notably if with a
disability, of all possibility of receiving a school education or
appropriate school-type training ... may constitute a serious and
clearly unlawful infringement of a fundamental freedom." In
addition, since a decision of 8 April 2009 the Conseil d'Etat has
held that the States' obligation to provide schooling for children
with disabilities must be considered an obligation of result; it ruled
that " the State's failure constitutes a fault such as to incur its
liability, without it being possible for the authorities to rely on the
arguments that there is a shortage of educational facilities and that
the parents of children with disabilities receive compensatory
benefits." In a judgment of 16 May 2011 the Conseil d'Etat
broadened the scope of this case-law to include provision for
persons with autism.
33. Yet, in 2006 the Ministry of Education announced that 64% of
children with autism received no form of schooling, a figure which
has not been updated since.
34. The French associations active in this field themselves estimate
that only 20% of children with autistic disorders have access to
some form of schooling. Of the remaining 80%, 30% attend
medico-educational institutes (IMEs) or day-hospital units, and in
this second case educational assistance is rarely offered.
35. It can therefore be concluded that the educational provision
provided by France covers 50% of school age autism sufferers and
hence that 40 000 school age children with autistic disorders have
no access to schooling, whether in ordinary classes or IMEs. They
are thus deprived of the fundamental right to an education
appropriate to their needs, to which every child is entitled.
b) Inadequacy of mainstream schooling
36. According to AEH, the French state fails to honour its
undertaking under Article 151 of the Charter to take the
necessary measures to provide persons with disabilities with
guidance, education and vocational training in the framework of
general schemes wherever possible.
37. It is true that the Education Code states that children shall be
entitled to attend mainstream schools, that the 2005 Act provides
that the schooling of children with disabilities in a mainstream
environment must be facilitated whenever possible and that the
Interministerial Circular of 8 March 2005 stipulates that the legal
provisions on the schooling of children with disabilities, as
consolidated by Law No. 2005-102 of 11 February 2005 on equal
rights and opportunities, participation and citizenship of persons
with disabilities, apply fully to children suffering from autism or

PDDs.
38. However, according to the Ministry for the Family and
Solidarity only 11,500 children with autism were enrolled in
mainstream classes in 2009/2010. The Ministry of Education has
given a figure of between 22 000 and 25 000 children with autism
or similar disorders who were able to attend mainstream schools
on a full time or part time basis in 2011-2012. Therefore,
according to the Ministrys figures, less than 30% of children with
autism have access to mainstream schooling.
39. Furthermore, as children with autism move up through the
stages of compulsory schooling the number attending mainstream
classes decreases. According to the figures for 2010 provided by
the Ministry of Education at the meeting of the Autism Committee
held on 14 March 2012, although 87% of children with autism
attend mainstream classes at primary level, only 11% do so at
lower secondary and 1.2% at upper secondary level.
40. Besides this, the figures given by the Ministry of Education
cannot reflect the actual number of children with autism in school
as they fail to take account of the diversity of situations. This is
because, firstly, "enrolment does not systematically mean actual
integration in mainstream classes." Some children are "enrolled" in
a school near their home but actually attend a different school or
an IME. Secondly, full-time schooling and part-time schooling are
counted in the same way. However, a large number of [children
with autism] who go to school only do so on a part-time or even
extremely partial basis (3 hours per week).
41. Lastly, the school integration classes (CLIS) (at infants and
primary levels) and local school integration units (ULIS) (at lower
and upper secondary level) which take in children with disabilities
in mainstream schools are often ghettoised, providing scant
opportunities to integrate with mainstream classes and only rarely
sharing activities with other classes. In principle, a majority of
pupils attending these specialised classes should receive an
individual education in another class within the school. However, in
reality, a child with autism integrating a mainstream class for a
number of lessons must be accompanied by a school assistant
(AVS) assigned to him or her individually, which is very often
refused because the teachers of the specialised classes are aided
by collective school assistants.
42. The presence of these AVSs has given a major extra impetus to
the integration of pupils with autism into mainstream schools.
However, despite the Government's efforts since the Committees
decision in 2004, there are still not enough AVSs and the school
inspectorate struggles to assign them to families in practice. In
fact, in most cases, the CDAPH (the Commission for the Rights and
Self-Reliance of People with Disabilities) assigns only a few hours
of AVS support to each child with a disability. Furthermore,
according to the National Disabled Persons Advisory Committee
(CNCPH), the official number of hours is not always observed.
43. Many schools refuse to admit children with autism unless they
are accompanied by an AVS. Yet, according to a Ministry of
Education circular, the presence of an AVS may not be regarded
as a prerequisite for admission to school.
44. The status of AVSs, like all educational assistants, is uncertain.
Training on autism for AVSs and persons on school welfare posts
(EVSs) is either very limited or non-existent. On average only
three hours are devoted to autism during training courses for
AVSs. EVSs, for their part, do not have any compulsory training.
Furthermore, the teachers concerned are usually not trained in
dealing with children with autism. However, dealing with children
and adolescents suffering from autism requires even more
adjustment and training. Every teacher should therefore be given
training on autism as all teachers are liable to have a child with
autism in their class. Yet, this eventuality is not taken into account
at all.
45. The state has taken measures to remove the architectural
obstacles posed by school buildings and the technical obstacles
posed by school transport to make it easier for children and young
people with reduced mobility to attend school. However, no
measure has been taken to remove the human obstacles posed by
the negative attitudes to be found at all levels of the school
hierarchy (heads, teachers, support services, nursing staff, etc.).
Yet, it is for the state to take steps to remove these human
obstacles.
46. Lastly, because of the lack of suitable places and facilities and
its refusal to create and finance such classes in France, the French
state has helped to finance the schooling of children and
adolescents with autism in specialised classes run by trained
professionals in Belgium.
c) The inadequacy of other types of provision
47. By placing a large number of children with autism in IMEs or
day-hospital units (about 30% of those not attending mainstream
schools), France fails to fulfil its commitment under Article 151 of
the Charter to provide "education ... in the framework of general
schemes wherever possible". The expression "wherever possible"
entails forward-looking and flexible application, combined with the
resources necessary to ensure support within schools on a case-bycase basis.
48. These other types of provision are also hampered by the fact
that the IMEs lack financial resources and there is a shortage of the
specialised staff needed to provide a genuine education or other
staff to supervise children attending mainstream classes part time
or to increase the hours of schooling whenever possible on a caseby-case basis. As a result, the Act of 2005 provides for possible
alternating attendance of an IME and a mainstream school, or
specialised classes within an IME.
2. The Government
49. The Government points out that AEH recognises that French
positive law complies with the Charter, that France has made
efforts which have shown political goodwill with a view to tackling
the problem of autism and that two and a half years after its
launch, the second Autism Plan has achieved positive results in
terms of raising awareness, promoting new methods and creating
additional care places.
50. It considers that AEHs complaints are unfounded because
there have been significant improvements in the education and
vocational training of children and adults with autism. It has made
measurable progress over a reasonable timeframe despite a
difficult budgetary context, making considerable financial and
practical efforts to provide and promote education and vocational
training for people suffering from autism and other PDDs. These
efforts have had an impact, as various independent authorities
have acknowledged that significant progress has been made.
51. The Government is pursuing a proactive policy to provide
facilities and support for people with autism. This policy has
resulted in successive autism plans for the periods 2005-2007
and 2008-2010 and a consultation process is already under way
with the relevant associations to prepare a third plan, whose
launch has already been announced. It will be prepared at
interministerial level under the auspices of the Secretary General of
the Interdepartmental Disability Committee, with the regular
involvement of all the stakeholders represented on the National
Autism Committee (CNA). The focuses of this third plan will be
early detection, research on autism and the development of
support facilities designed to promote integration at school and at
work, together with support for family carers. It will contain targets
spread over the period from 2013 to 2015 and will be followed up
regularly by the National Autism Committee. Particular attention
will be paid to the governance of this plan, both at national level
and with regard to its implementation at regional level.
52. An exceptional effort has been made by France to deal with
autism comprehensively. The 2008-2010 Autism Plan, which was
drawn up in consultation with professionals and associations and
constructed around thirty key measures, has been a major step
forward in public policy for persons with autism and their
entourage. It has yielded tangible results, particularly thanks to the
considerable involvement of regional health agencies on the
ground. For instance, it has helped to improve knowledge about
autism through a knowledge corpus, published in March 2010 and
designed to be disseminated widely and provide material for the
training of professionals. An interinstitutional, multidisciplinary
national training course was devised by the School for Higher
Public Health Studies (EHESP) to disseminate this knowledge
corpus and training began in September 2011.
53. The Autism Plan has also made it possible to improve support
for patients and their families by providing additional funds for
diagnostic teams (5.6 million between 2009 and 2011). There has
also been an increase in the funds available to autism resource
centres (CRAs), which have been established in all regions since

the 2005-2007 plan.
54. The Autism Plan also made provision to earmark 170 million
for the creation of 4 100 further places for persons with autism,
comprising 2 100 places for children (1 500 in medico-educational
institutes [IMEs] and 600 in special education and home care
services [SESSADs]) and 2 000 places for adults (in special
residential care establishments [MASs], residential care
establishments for adults with disabilities [FAMs] and newly
created medical and social services for adults with disabilities
[SAMSAHs]). This budget has been increased by 10% to fund
experiments with new types of care provision. To date, 52% of the
planned places have been set up, meaning that funding has
already been allocated for 2 120 places in various establishments
and services, amounting to a total of 78.5 million. In the special
education and home care services (SESSADs), 422 places were set
up to foster the independence of children with autism.
55. The Autism Plan also placed emphasis on developing
behavioural support methods. In this connection 28 test facilities
and 417 additional places were authorised in three successive
waves in 2009, 2010 and 2011, for which the budget amounted to
22.4 million. It should be pointed out that these figures relate to
places earmarked specifically for cases of autism as part of a
special effort to create places. It is also possible for non-specific
places to be occupied by persons with autism, in which case they
are still provided with appropriate care. A study carried out in the
context of the Autism Plan showed that 36% of the medico-social
establishments for young people with disabilities surveyed which
receive persons with pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs)
had special care facilities: 14% are entirely given over to children
and adolescents with PDDs while 22% have a specific section for
PDDs. Of the 64% of establishments which did not have special
facilities, 16% stated that they had special earmarked funds (study
on the support facilities for people with pervasive developmental
disorders (PDDs) in three French regions Prof. A. Baghdadli, C.
Rattaz, Dr B. Ledsert, March 2011).
56. Furthermore, in September 2011, 20 375 pupils with autism or
a PDD, or nearly 10% of the 210 395 pupils with a disability, had a
personal schooling plan (PPS) and attended a mainstream primary
or secondary school. This figure was in the region of 12 000 to
13 000 in 2008-2009 so it can be seen that there has been an
increase in numbers of some 60% since that time (between 7 000
and 8 000 additional children now attend school).
57. A review of the Autism Plan in 2011 highlighted the genuine
progress that had been made in relation to the situation in 2008.
The momentum of the plan must continue and be applied in
particular to epidemiology, research and access to somatic
treatment. It was with this goal in mind that autism was declared
the National Cause of the Year in 2012.
a) The inadequacy of mainstream schooling
58. The Government begins by pointing to the significant progress

that has been made in the area of mainstream schooling for
children with autism.
59. Secondly, the Government considers that AEH misinterprets
Article 15 of the Charter, which does not require, any more than
national law, that education for young people with disabilities
should be provided exclusively by mainstream schools. Article 15
does not limit the Parties undertakings with regard to the social
integration of young people with disabilities to school attendance
alone. Provision in France for children and adolescents with
disabilities, including those with PDDs, is based on several sectors
(health, medico-social services and schools). Schooling and
educational support are not the exclusive specific tasks of medicosocial services and establishments and health care professionals
and establishments (like care, treatment, etc.).
60. In this connection, the law, which has entrusted schooling to
the state education service, makes provision for young people who
cannot be catered for in mainstream schools to attend teaching
units, which are set up in co-operation between schools and
medico-social or health establishments. This arrangement sheds a
different light on the exclusive schooling approach. Moreover, as
stated previously, AEHs assertions do not prove that care in a
medico-social or health establishment combined with appropriate
schooling provided by a teaching unit does not meet the social
integration objective set by Article 15 of the Charter.
61. Steering children towards facilities other than mainstream
schools forms part of the education and training arrangements in
special facilities referred to in Article L. 112-1 (paragraph 3) of the
Education Code. Not all children with autism can attend
mainstream schools for reasons including, in particular, the
severity of their disability. It is important to bear in mind that the
terms autism and pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs)
cover an extremely varied range of medical and behavioural
conditions, which are combined with many related pathologies and
disorders (such as sleep disorders, psychiatric conditions, epilepsy
and mental retardation).
62. As a result, France has established a system allowing for
persons with autisms medical, psychological and social treatment
while also providing for their schooling (Article L. 112-1, paragraph
7).
63. To establish what is the most appropriate arrangement,
decisions are taken, under judicial supervision where necessary, by
the Commission for the Rights and Self-Reliance of People with
Disabilities (CDAPH), which is a branch of the dpartement for
persons with disabilities unit (MDPH), according to the procedure
set out in Article L. 241-6 of the Social Welfare and Family Code.
MDPHs are set up in the form of public interest groupings and
operate under the authority of the Chair of the dpartement
council. The CDAPH takes its decision in the light of the personal
schooling plan drawn up by the multidisciplinary team (Article D.
351-7 of the Education Code). Article L. 112-2 of the Education
Code states that a disabled child with disabilities personal

schooling plan must be based on an assessment of their skills and
needs and the measures taken as part of [their education]
programme.
64. AEH claims, but fails to demonstrate, that decisions to direct
children towards IMEs, CLISs or ULISs are taken by default, in
that they are the result of a lack of space or means of providing for
young persons with autism directly in traditional school classes.
65. However, according to the Government, the procedure for
admission to IMEs, CLISs and ULISs is organised directly in the
childs interest, with the familys consent. If the family does not
agree with a decision, it may appeal to the technical social security
disputes tribunal, in accordance with the provisions of Article L.
241-9 of the Social Welfare and Family Code. Lastly, such decisions
are regularly reviewed, which makes it possible to follow the
development of childrens disabilities and plan, where appropriate,
for these children to be enrolled in a mainstream school. This
possibility is moreover provided for by Articles D. 351-3 and D.
351-4 of the Education Code, under which, even if pupils are sent
to a special facility, they are also enrolled in a so-called reference
establishment, to which they may return if, as described above,
there is a favourable development in their disability.
b) Arrangements for enrolment in a mainstream school
66. AEH submits firstly that France makes no provision for children
with autism to be integrated because no measure has been taken
to remove the human obstacles posed by the negative attitudes to
be found at all levels of the school hierarchy. The Government
considers that there is no precise objective evidence to back up
this assertion and it is contradicted by the entire system set up as
a result of the legislation and regulations adopted in 2005, whose
aim was to help children with disabilities to integrate more fully
into schools.
c) Co-ordination of the school and school health sectors
67. According to the Government, the proper implementation of
the Law of 11 February 2005 on schooling depends on the ability of
the specialised sector and state education establishments to cooperate and learn from one another.
68. Two texts of April 2009 are intended to guarantee that children
with a disability or an incapacitating health condition have a full
and uninterrupted school career whatever the nature and extent of
their impairment:
- Decree No. 2009-378 of 2 April 2009 extends and generalises cooperation arrangements and practices between state education
services and the medico-social sector with regard to the schooling
of pupils with disabilities and provides legal frameworks which are
often useful when it comes to allowing people from outside to
intervene in schools, including:
the legal framework for operations by social and medicosocial services and establishments in schools with pupils
covered by a CDAPH notification of a joint mainstream
school/medico-social sector project;
the legal framework for consultation between teachers and
medico-social professionals on appropriate educational
approaches and methods;
the legal framework for the involvement of medico-social
professionals in the vocational training of state teaching
staff and in the teaching of civics, law and social studies.
- The interministerial decree of 2 April 2009 regulates the activities
of state teachers with children and adolescents being cared for by
medico-social services by organising the teaching units provided
for by the Education Code to provide schooling for young people
with disabilities who cannot attend a mainstream school.
69. This co-operation, which has no impact on the distribution of
the roles of each sector, helps pupils to follow their own paths,
suited to their own needs and adjusted accordingly throughout
their schooling. In this way, pupils personal schooling plans and
the individual care plans established by the medico-social
establishment are co-ordinated and a premium is placed on the
joint management of medico-social care and mainstream
schooling.
70. The Government considers the allegation of a lack of cooperation between the state education authorities and the medicosocial sector with regard to autism to be unfounded. The second
Autism Plan included two specific activities designed to meet the
need for training in co-operation:
- Measure No. 5, whose aim was to Set up training courses for
trainers. These training courses, which had an interdisciplinary
focus and were aimed therefore at various training networks in the
educational, medico-social and health sectors, were held
throughout the country in 2011/2012 with the aim of disseminating
the knowledge corpus throughout these networks.
- Measure No. 12, whose aim was to Back up the work of autism
resource centres so as to provide a more consistent service for
users. This measure resulted in a circular of 27 July 2010, which
provided that one of the main tasks of autism resource centres and
associated hospital teams was to promote interdisciplinary training.
d) The alleged lack of places and specialised staff in
specialised facilities
71. With regard to medico-social establishments, the 2008-2012
programme for the creation of life-long care places for people with
disabilities provides for the creation of over 50 000 places (39 000
places for adults, including 10 000 in ESATs, and 12 000 for
children). Bearing in mind the time required to implement these
measures, the places will be opened progressively over the period
up to 2016. This exceptional project, to which France is allocating

1.45 billion, should not detract from the major effort that has
already been made to adapt the facilities on offer, reflected in
particular by a major increase in the number of places offered in
services (10 000 places more between 2006 and 2010), fostering
an increase in mainstream schooling.
72. In response to the unsubstantiated allegation of staff
shortages, the Government points out that the funding for all these
new places obviously also covers the cost of the additional
specialised staff required.
73. Furthermore, it is said that the frequent lack of co-ordination
between day-hospital units and state education is the result of a
shortage of staff in dpartement for persons with disabilities units
(MDPHs) and little time to study files. MDPHs, however, have
nothing to do with decisions to send persons to day-hospital units
and this betrays a certain degree of ignorance on the part of AEH
about the organisation of the system whose failings it attempts
nonetheless to pinpoint.
B. Assessment of the Committee
Case-law of the Committee
74. The Committee must make an assessment of the conformity of
the situation brought before it, based on the one hand on the
reasons for which Article 15 was included in the Charter, which
determines the normative content of the provision, and on the
other, on its decision of 4 November 2003 on the merits of the
complaint Autism-Europe v. France (No. 13/2002), in which it
found a violation by France of Article 151 (and Article 171)
whether alone or read in conjunction with Article E, following
allegations of a similar nature to those made in the context of this
complaint.
75. Firstly, the Committee recalls that Article 15 reflects and takes
forward the shift in values that has occurred in Europe with regard
to people with disabilities, in which ideas of welfare and
segregation have given way to an approach centred on inclusion
and choice (Conclusions 2003, General Introduction, p. 10). As it
stated in its decision of 4 November 2003 on the merits of the
Autism-Europe v. France complaint, the underlying vision of Article
15 is one of equal citizenship for persons with disabilities and,
fittingly therefore, the primary rights are those of independence,
social integration and participation in the life of the community.
Securing a right to education for children and others with
disabilities plays a patently important role in advancing these
citizenship rights. This explains why education is now specifically
mentioned in the revised Article 15 and why such an emphasis is
placed on achieving that education in the framework of general
schemes, wherever possible. It should be noted that Article 15
applies to all persons with disabilities regardless of the nature and
origin of their disability and irrespective of their age. It thus clearly
covers both children and adults with autism (Autism-Europe v.
France, decision on the merits of 4 November 2003 cited above,
48).
76. Secondly, the Committee recalls that in the aforementioned

decision it found that France violated Article 151 for the following
reasons:
- the restrictive definition of autism used in French official
documents;
- the insufficient statistics to measure the progress that had
nonetheless been made over time;
- the proportion of children with autism being educated in either
mainstream or special schools, which was still extremely low and
significantly lower than that of other children, whether or not
having a disability (Autism-Europe v. France, decision on the
merits of 4 November 2003, 54).
77. In its follow-up to the decision of 4 November 2003 in the
context of its examination of the national reports on the application
of the Charter, the Committee found, both for the reference period
from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2006 (Conclusions 2008,
France, Article 151) and for that from 1 January 2007 to 31
December 2010 (Conclusions 2012, France, Article 151), that the
situation in France was not in conformity with Article 151 of the
Charter because it had not been established that people with
autism were guaranteed effective equal access to (mainstream and
special) education.
78. In relation to the current complaint, the Committee reiterates
that Article 151 of the Charter makes it an obligation for States
Parties to provide education for persons with disabilities, together
with vocational guidance and training, in one or other of the pillars
of the education system, in other words mainstream or special
schools. It adds that the priority to be given to education in
mainstream establishments, which is referred to explicitly in the
article, is subject to a conditionality clause, which if interpreted as
it ordinarily would be and with due regard for the context and
purpose of the provision, indicates to the public authorities that in
order to secure the independence, social integration and
participation in the life of the community of persons with
disabilities through their education, they must take account of the
type of disability concerned, how serious it is and a variety of
individual circumstances to be examined on a case-by-case basis.
Consequently, Article 151 of the Charter does not leave States
Parties a wide margin of appreciation when it comes to choosing
the type of school in which they will promote the independence,
integration and participation of persons with disabilities, as this
must clearly be a mainstream school.
79. In its decision of 2003 on the merits of the Autism-Europe v.
France complaint, the Committee held that when the achievement
of one of the rights protected by the Charter is exceptionally
complex and particularly expensive to resolve, the measures taken
by a State to achieve the Charter's objectives must meet the
following three criteria: "(i) a reasonable timeframe, (ii)
measurable progress and (iii) financing consistent with the
maximum use of available resources" (Autism-Europe v. France,
cited above, 53). The Committee reiterated this requirement in
decisions on subsequent complaints, particularly those concerning
the rights of people with disabilities (Mental Disability Advocacy
Center (MDAC) v. Bulgaria, Complaint No. 41/2007, decision on

the merits of 3 June 2008, 39; FIDH v. Belgium, Complaint No.
62/2010, decision on the merits of 21 March 2012, 113).
Application of the case-law to this case
The priority given to mainstream schools for the education of
children and adolescents with autism
80. The Committee takes note of the definition of autism given by
WHO (in 20, above), which regards it not as a temporary disease,
which could therefore be cured, but as a disability. If it is assumed
that the stable and permanent nature of all disabilities (whether
mental, cognitive as is the case here or somatic) means that
the person concerned must be educated in citizenship, then human
assistance must be arranged for all or part of their schooling. Such
human assistance is often the prerequisite for children or
adolescents with autism to take full advantage of their schooling
and progress with and among other children and adolescents.
81. The Committee would point out that in general, states have a
wide margin of appreciation in the way in which they implement
the Charter (European Council of Police Trade Unions (CESP) v.
Portugal, Complaint No. 37/2006, decision on the merits of
3 December 2007, 14). However, where the persons affected by
the priority to be given to mainstream schools, as the means most
liable of securing the independence, integration and participation of
persons with disabilities, are children and adolescents with autism,
Article 151 implies that states are required to provide the human
assistance needed for the school career of the persons concerned.
The margin of appreciation applies only to the means that states
deem most appropriate to ensure that this assistance is provided,
bearing in mind the cultural, political or financial circumstances in
which their education system operates (see, mutatis mutandis,
ECHR Grand Chamber judgment of 22 May 2012, Scoppola v. Italy,
application No. 126/05, 83). However, this is subject to the
provision that, at all events, the choices made and the means
adopted are not of a nature or are not applied in a way that
deprives the established right of its effectiveness and turns it into a
purely theoretical right (European Federation of National
Organisations working with the Homeless (FEANTSA) v. France,
Complaint No. 39/2006, decision on the merits of 5 December
2007, 55).
82. The Committee notes that France recognises autism as a
disability under the laws of 1975 and 1996, which are still in force
today. It also notes that under this legislation, priority is given to
educating children and adolescents with autism in mainstream
schools. For this purpose, in 2005, the law established the right for
all children with disabilities including those with autism to be
enrolled in a mainstream school, along with alternatives such as
individual schooling in mainstream classes through the assistance
of an individual school assistant (AVSi). Provision is also made for
teaching in separate classes, which are given at mainstream
schools and run by a collective school assistant (AVSco). These
collective classes are known as school integration classes (classes
d'inclusion scolaire - CLIS) at the infants' and primary levels and

local school integration units (Units localises pour l'inclusion
scolaire - ULIS) at lower and upper secondary level.
83. However, the Committee would point out that according to the
figures from Government sources which are given in the complaint
and the complainant organisations response, the number of
children with autism in school decreases significantly at each stage
of compulsory schooling: 87% of children with autism attend
primary school, 11% lower secondary school and 1.2% upper
secondary school. At the very last level of schooling, for the 20112012 academic year, the figure in absolute terms was 553 pupils.
84. The Committee notes that the Government does not dispute
these figures and argues that not all children and adolescents with
autism can be taught in mainstream schools because of the
severity of their disability. In response to this argument, AEH
submits that there is a considerable difference between all
children and the figure of only 20% of children and adolescents
with autism who are taught in mainstream schools according to
Government sources, whereas according to the same sources, only
30% of persons with autism have intellectual impairments.
85. The Committee considers assistance at school a particularly
important means of being able to keep children and adolescents
with autism in mainstream schools, although it acknowledges that
this method of promoting social integration through education is
not the only possible way of achieving the aim of sending children
with autism to mainstream schools.
86. The Committee notes that AEH alleges that there are several
shortcomings in the AVS system and its functioning in practice and
that this is not disputed by the Government. These include, in
particular, the number of AVSs actually appointed by the Ministry
of Education, the lack of hours actually given over to the
participation of AVSs in class, who, moreover, find it difficult to
gain respect, the unjustified refusal of mainstream schools to take
in children with autism unless they are accompanied by an AVS
(despite a circular from the Ministry of Education stating that the
presence of an AVS could not be considered a legitimate
requirement for admission to school) and gaps in AVSs training on
autism.
87. The Committee takes particular note of the complainant
organisations allegation, which has not been contradicted by the
Government either, that AVSs were regularly recruited by the
Ministry of Education from the 2010-2011 academic year onwards
on insecure employment contracts, particularly single integration
contracts (CUIs). This clearly undermines the substance of the
work of assisting children and adolescents with disabilities and, in
this specific case, with autism.
88. The Committee considers that the alleged shortcomings,
particularly the shortage of AVSs and the failure to provide a
continuous service throughout the school life of the children
concerned, are such as to hamper the school careers of children
and adolescents with autism in mainstream schools and amount to

a process of driving such pupils away from mainstream schools.
89. As to the provision of schooling for children and adolescents
with autism through the establishment of separate classes for
children and adolescents with disabilities inside and within the
framework of infants schools (CLISs) and secondary schools
(ULISs), the Committee notes that the Government fails to reply to
AEHs allegations that this form of schooling suffers from a high
number of shortcomings.
90. The Committee would highlight the following allegations in
particular: the lack of opportunities for special classes to integrate
with mainstream classes; the scarcity of joint lessons with
mainstream classes; the fact that children with autism do not have
their recreational and lunch breaks at the same time as other
children in the school; the isolation of classrooms for special
classes from other buildings and overcrowding of these classes; the
fact that children with all types of disability are mixed together in
special classes; a high rotation of teaching teams, conducive
neither to regular teaching nor to the consistent implementation of
suitable teaching programmes; the lack of specific training for
teachers about autism, with the result both that they are reluctant
to allow children with autism to join their class and that unsuitable
teaching methods may be adopted and; the fact that teachers who
are concerned about the proper integration of children and
adolescents with autism are left to arrange their own training on
autism.
91. The Committee is aware that the alleged shortcomings are not
always encountered simultaneously and that the situation varies
depending on the specific circumstances of the classes attended by
children or adolescents with autism. It considers, however, that the
situations described, which are not disputed by the Government,
are incompatible with schools fundamental role, which is to help all
pupils go as far as they are able, whatever their possibilities, and
to find their own way and achieve self-fulfilment in accordance with
their capacities and aspirations. The Committee considers that
Article 151 of the Charter implies that schools have this
fundamental role because it views them as a means to help
persons with disabilities including children and adolescents with
autism to achieve the goal of independence, social integration and
participation in the life of the community.
92. The Committee acknowledges that the learning difficulties
which pupils with autism often experience throughout their school
careers frequently prevent them from obtaining the qualification
that they would usually acquire by the end of their compulsory
schooling. However, the legislation states that all pupils who have
not acquired the required level of instruction by the age of 16 are
entitled to continue at school. According to AEHs allegations, which
are not disputed by the Government, in practice, children and
adolescents with disabilities are denied this right because of the
lack of available places in schools. According to figures provided by
the complainant organisation, which have not been refuted by the
Government, 90% of young persons with autism between the age
of 16 and 19 do not continue to attend school. Yet, the

fundamental goals of schools could be better served in the case of
children and adolescents with autism if they could be allowed to
continue attending school beyond the age of 16, which is the age
at which compulsory schooling ends in France.
93. The Committee considers that the denial, in practice, of the
right of children and adolescents with autism to continue attending
school beyond compulsory school age despite the fact that this is
the legal right of all pupils, amounts to a missed opportunity for
the persons concerned to attain their potential in the mainstream
school environment.
94. Furthermore, with regard to the measurable progress criterion,
the Committee points out that, in paragraph 53 of its decision of 4
November 2003 on the merits of the Autism-Europe v. France
complaint cited above, it found that the proportion of children with
autism being educated in schools was extremely low, and much
lower than in the case of other children (whether or not having a
disability), taking as a basis the figures provided by the
complainant organisation according to which scarcely 10% of
children with autism attended mainstream schools. The Committee
takes account of the fact that in France the debate concerning the
education of children with disabilities and their integration in
society had already lasted 20 years and, consequently, the above
proportion was achieved at the end of this period. In the light of
this situation, the fact that, according to Government sources, the
proportion of 20% of children and adolescents with autism in
mainstream schools had been achieved when the complaint was
filed constitutes a step forward in two respects. Firstly, as an
absolute figure. Secondly, in view of its rate of growth, as the
increase compared with the proportion recorded in 2003 was
achieved after only 8 to 9 years. In the end, however, the
Committee considers that no real progress has been made in this
area. The pendant to the 20% of children with autism in schools is
the 80% of children who do not attend school, who are in practice
excluded from the enjoyment of a social right enshrined in and
guaranteed by the Charter (see, FIDH v. Belgium, cited above,
113).
95. The Committee notes that France has undoubtedly made a
noteworthy effort to rationalise its policy for the schooling of
children and adolescents with autism through the two successive
plans covering the periods 2005-2007 (1st Autism Plan) and 20082010 (2nd Autism Plan).
96. The Committee considers that the overall timeframe of five
years, resulting from the two successive plans, is not too long,
bearing in mind the margin of appreciation enjoyed by States
Parties.
97. However, the Committee notes that only half of the measures
provided for in the 2nd Autism Plan have been more or less
completed and that some measures were not even initiated, while
a 3rd Autism Plan has been launched in 2013 following a three-
year break between plans, meaning that the deadline for achieving
the newly assigned objectives is prolonged to 2017.
98. The Committee regards this prolongation as unreasonable and
exceeding the margin of appreciation allowed to States Parties.
99. Concerning the criterion of maximum use of available
resources, the Committee scrupulously heeds the margin of
appreciation that States Parties enjoy in allocating financial
resources. However, in the present case, it cannot consider that
maximum use is being made of resources for the schooling of
children with autism while France subsidises travel to Belgium by
children and adolescents with autism of French nationality, who are
then accommodated and educated in specialised institutions
functioning according to appropriate educational standards, rather
than financing the implementation of these standards within
specialised institutions active in French territory (see 46 above).
100. The Committee holds therefore that there is a violation of
Article 151 of the Charter with regard to the right of children and
adolescents with autism to be educated primarily in mainstream
schools.
Vocational training of young persons with autism in mainstream
establishments or special institutions
101. Vocational training in the strict sense means the provision of
initial instruction to individuals to help them to acquire the
knowledge and skills they need to enter the labour market and
hence to achieve personal fulfilment and integration into the
community.
102. AEH considers the access of young people and adults with
autism in France to vocational training to be trifling or nonexistent. It alleges that the difficulties of adults with autism
encounter when it comes to their occupational integration are
linked to gaps in their occupational skills deriving from a significant
lack of training.
103. The Government repeats the point that it has already made in
another context (84), that because of the diversity of autistic
spectrum disorders, not all persons with autism can follow
vocational training. It explicitly denies the possibility that the
number of adults with autism with access to specialised public
institutions for the social and occupational rehabilitation of persons
with disabilities (which has been evaluated at 7% of the persons in
question) could have increased and refers instead to the growth in
the number of students with disabilities enrolled in French
universities between 2005 and 2012 without making any specific
reference to the percentage of these persons suffering from autistic
spectrum disorders.
104. In the Committees opinion, the imprecision of this reference
by the Government gives credence to the complainant
organisations argument. The latter refers to the legislative
arrangements which facilitate access for young adults with autism
to the acquisition of vocational training certificates or other
mainstream qualifications awarded by higher colleges or

universities while pointing out that it is not known how many
persons with autism hold such qualifications.
105. The Committee considers that vocational training cannot be
assessed in isolation. It forms part of a full range of education and
training activities for individuals and is closely linked to general
education. Furthermore, workers retain a fund or a deficit of
training from their school lives and their educational background
shapes their opinion on training.
106. From the figures cited above (in 83), which show that the
number of adolescents with autism who succeed in following the
successive stages of their schooling declines as they get older and
reaches the insignificant figure of 1.2% attending upper secondary
school, the Committee draws the conclusion that no difference can
be expected in the result where it comes to access to vocational
training for adolescents with autism after the end of compulsory
schooling (age 16) or the access of adults with autism until at least
the age generally required to complete a vocational training course
(between 25 and 27).
107. The Committee concludes in this context that the natural
consequence of the violation of the Charter it found because of the
defective schooling of children and adolescents is a lack of
measures designed to achieve the objectives of the Charter where
it comes to promoting the vocational training of these people when
they become adults.
108. It also concludes that the lack of measures in this sphere
makes it pointless to attempt to assess any gradual achievement
by France of the goals of the Charter in this respect in the light of
the criteria outlined above (in 79).
Article 151 of the Charter with regard to the right of young
persons with autism to vocational training.
The role of Frances specialised institutions as means of providing
guidance, education and vocational training to children and
adolescents with autism
110. The Committee considers that when Article 151 refers to
specialised institutions, it does so in the context of Article 15 as a
whole, in which the guidance, education and vocational training of
persons with disabilities in general and children and adolescents
with autism in this particular case are ranked as the first means of
securing these persons rights, as fully-fledged citizens, to
independence, social integration and participation in the life of the
community. The Committee points out that it is only in second and
third place that Article 15 ranks the means serving the same goal
and consisting respectively of access to employment and measures
facilitating the communication and mobility of the persons
concerned.
111. In the Committees view, the predominance of guidance,

education and vocational training in the overall system provided for
by Article 15 to secure the citizenship rights of people with
disabilities would be rendered void of all meaning if the specialised
institutions referred to in paragraph 1 of the article failed to
ensure, through their internal organisation and/or their working
methods, that guidance, education and vocational training were
given priority over the other functions and duties that they may be
required to perform under national law.
112. The Committee notes that the relevant legislation provides for
the care by the community of any person suffering from an autistic
spectrum disorder or a related condition, which should be suited to
his or her age or state, and may be educational, instructional,
therapeutic or social in nature (Article L. 246-1 of the Social
Welfare Code, as cited above, 15).
113. The Committee notes that this care is provided by medicoeducational institutes (IMEs) or day-hospital units, which form part
of regular hospitals. According to the Government, it relies on
several sectors for the treatment of the persons concerned,
including the health sector, which is ranked at the lowest level of
the system that the Charter recommends. The Government also
insists on the fact that the concepts of autism and related disorders
cover such a highly varied range of different medical and
behavioural conditions, combined with numerous pathologies, that
care provision is organised primarily on the basis of medical,
psychological and social treatment and only after that, on the basis
of education at school.
114. AEH alleges, in sum, that only one third of children and
adolescents with autism who are cared for in IMEs or hospitals
attend school. It believes that the causes of this situation are the
lack of funding for IMEs and of specialised staff to provide proper
schooling, together with a lack of staff to support children in the
transition to mainstream schools on a part-time basis or, in some
cases, for longer periods. It also alleges, with regard to the care
provided by day-hospital units in particular, that there is often a
lack of co-ordination between hospitals, schools and the relevant
departments of the Ministry of Education because of a lack of staff
and time to be assigned to examining each file and the collective
preparation of personal care plans.
115. The Committee notes that there is strong evidence to indicate
that France is not fulfiling its obligation, under Article 151, to
ensure that, in the context of care provision for children and
adolescents suffering from autism within specialised institutions
such as IMEs or day-hospital units, the work done by these
institutions and the working methods they utilise are
predominantly of an educational nature.
116. In this respect, the Law (Article L112-1, 7) only foresees
educational provision within these institutions as a subsidiary
element amongst a number of other activities (pedagogical,
psychological, social, medical and paramedical).
117. The Committee concludes, in the first place, that between

2007, when a report commissioned by the Ministry of Health took
stock of the practices basing care provision for children with autism
on psychoanalytic therapy and directly challenged their scientific
value and therapeutic efficacy, and March 2012, when the French
National Authority for Health (HAS) recommended in its good
practice recommendations concerning autism that children with
autism should henceforth be treated in specialised institutions on
the basis of a cognitive behavioural therapy approach (the "ABA"
method), which is primarily developmental and educational in
nature and is aimed at gradually integrating those concerned into a
mainstream school environment, community care for these
children was, throughout this period and even before and beyond
it, dominated by an approach which significantly neglected the
educational aspect.
118. The Committee notes that it transpires both from AEH's
submissions and from the sources that have just been referred to
above (see 18 above) that, during the Autism Plan for 2008-2011,
some thirty institutions caring for children and adolescents
suffering from autism were established, in which the "ABA" method
is utilised. These institutions were, however, set up on an
experimental basis and, in any case, their creation was not
followed by action to consolidate the method and bring it into
systematic use.
119. For these reasons the Committee finds that France has not
taken sufficient measures capable of ensuring that the work done
by institutions caring for children and adolescents suffering from
autism and the working methods they utilise are predominantly
educational in nature.
120. It also notes that Frances lack of commitment in this area
precludes any specific and practical assessment of the gradual
achievement by the Government of the goals of the Charter in this
respect in the light of the criteria outlined above (in 79).
121. Consequently, there is a violation of the Charter because the
work done in specialised institutions caring for children and
adolescents with autism is not predominantly educational in
nature.
II. Alleged violation of Article E of the Charter, taken alone
or in conjunction with Article 151
122. Article E of the Charter reads:
Article E Non-discrimination
"The enjoyment of the rights set forth in this Charter
shall be secured without discrimination on any
ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national extraction or social
origin, health, association with a national minority,
birth or other status."
A. Submissions of the parties
1. The complainant organisation

123. AEH submits that there is a general discrimination because of
the situation of children with autism with regard to education for all
the reasons outlined above under Article 15.
124. It also considers that the fact that children are cared for in
Belgium amounts to discrimination against them.
125. Indeed, due to a shortage of appropriate places and facilities
in France, between 3 500 and 5 000 French people with disabilities
(including persons with autism) are catered for in Belgium in 26
approved establishments, with the expenses paid by the
dpartement council (for adults) or the French sickness insurance
scheme (for children). The exact number of French nationals cared
for in Belgian institutions is not known. In a report of 2005 the
General Welfare Inspectorate (IGAS) pointed out that "No state
body or agency has consistent, reliable, complete statistics on the
number of people with disabilities who have been placed abroad."
126. However, in this report IGAS estimated that some 3 600
French people with disabilities had been cared for in Belgian
medico-social establishments in 2005. In her report on the
situation of persons with disabilities obliged to attend facilities in
Belgium, Ccile Gallez estimated that there are about 1 900 French
children with disabilities being provided for in Belgian specialised
institutions, about half of whom come from the Nord-Pas-de-Calais
region.
127. And yet, in 2012, it can but be noted that this "banishment to
Belgium" continues. On 21 December 2011, France and the
Walloon Region signed a cross-border framework agreement on
provision for French children and adults with disabilities in Belgium.
Ms Marie-Anne Montchamp, Secretary of State at the Ministry for
Solidarity and Social Cohesion, stated "The aim is to place this
system on a lasting footing." At the same time, in 2009, the MP
Ccile Gallez had underlined "It is a country's primary duty to be
able to accommodate its nationals, especially the most vulnerable
of them, and it is unacceptable to see them forced to leave France
for lack of places."
128. By funding the schooling of children with autism in specialised
classes in Belgium, run by trained professionals, and by refusing to
create and finance such classes in France, the state creates a
discriminatory situation in France and breaches its nondiscrimination obligation under Article E of the Charter.
2. The Government
129. With regard to the alleged but unsubstantiated offences of
discrimination, the Government points out that Article L. 351-2 of
the Education Code does not allow a school head or the director of
another establishment to refuse to enrol a child, as the decisions of
the CDAPH in this respect are binding on all mainstream schools
and specialised services. The same applies to teachers and if, for
example, they objected to the presence of a child with a disability
in their lessons, they would be failing in their duties and liable to

disciplinary sanctions. In truth, as is emphasised in report No.
2012-100 of September 2012 by the state education inspectorate
on the implementation of the Act of 11 February 2005, refusals to
enrol pupils are exceptional and the inspectorate even talks of a
sincere commitment among all the staff concerned to the values
and the principles enshrined in the law.
130. AEH subsequently highlights various factors which it thinks
may account for the discriminatory attitudes of certain teaching
staff, particularly the reduction in the number of teachers, the lack
of specialised training on autism and the shortage of school
assistants (AVSs). Yet the aforementioned report by the education
inspectorate points talks of a substantial financial effort and
shows that between 2007 and 2011, the number of specialised
teachers increased by 18.79%, the number of AVSs and EVSs by
100.34% and the amount of special teaching materials by 27.84%.
131. With regard to the care provided in Belgium, the IGAS report
to which AEH refers relates to persons with disabilities as a whole
and not just to children with autism. It should be pointed out,
moreover, that contrary to what AEH claims, the purpose of the
agreement between France and the Walloon Region, which is in the
process of ratification, is to improve knowledge about the persons
concerned, to ensure that they are properly cared for by, among
other things, organising joint inspections and to place the support
provided by health insurance or social insurance depending on the
circumstances on a more permanent footing. The aim is not to
increase flows but to regulate practices. The allegation of
discrimination made in this connection, which is said to arise from
the refusal of the French state to set up specialised classes in
France, is entirely unfounded in view of the investment and
progress made in improving the conditions of children with autism
at school.
B. Assessment of the Committee
132. Article E prohibits discrimination on the ground of disability.
Although disability is not explicitly listed as a prohibited ground of
discrimination under Article E, it is adequately covered by the
reference to other status (Autism-Europe v. France, cited above,
51).
133. The Committee recalls that, since the wording of Article E is
very similar to that of Article 14 of the European Convention on
Human Rights, within the framework of the Charter it has reflected
the interpretation given to this provision of the Convention by the
European Court of Human Rights in its Thlimmenos v. Greece
judgment of 2000 by stipulating that Article E entails that, in a
democratic society, not only should persons who are in the same
situation be treated equally and persons whose situations differ be
treated differently, but all responses should show sufficient
discernment to ensure real and effective equality. On the same
basis, the Committee considers that Article E also prohibits all
forms of indirect discrimination. Such indirect discrimination may
arise by failing to take due and positive account of all relevant
differences or by failing to take adequate steps to ensure that the

rights and collective advantages that are open to all are genuinely
accessible by and to all (Autism-Europe v. France, cited above,
52).
134. The Committee has received no evidence or other information
concerning a cross-border flow from France to Belgium - of
children, adolescents and young adults in good intellectual and
physical health, so as to undergo schooling or vocational training,
which would, in addition, require supervision and monitoring
measures on the part of the competent authorities in their home
country.
135. The Committee considers that the fact that the flow of
children and adolescents from Belgium to France solely involves
persons with disabilities attending special schools, including
persons with autism, illustrates the respondent Government's
failure to cater for the specific schooling needs of all these persons
within its national territory, thereby imposing on them a way of life
different from the treatment reserved for people not suffering from
a mental or physical disability and in the same situation as regards
their schooling needs (see 82 above).
136. The fact families have no other choice than to go abroad,
notably to Belgium in order to educate their children with autism in
a specialised school arises from failure of France to take into
account the specific learning and communication needs at school
within its own national territory and constitutes for this reason a
direct discrimination against them.
Article E of the Charter, taken in conjunction with Article 151.
138. The Committee also notes that the Government mentions that
the policy it has pursued with regard to the schooling of children
and adolescents with autism since the decision on the merits of the
Autism-Europe v. France complaint of 4 November 2003 and up to
the present decision has been conducted in a context of budget
restrictions.
139. The Committee considers it to be an illustration of the modest
public funding provided for the education of children and
adolescents with autism that, despite the fact that the 2008-2010
Autism Plan earmarked 170 million for the creation of 4 100
additional places for people with autism comprising 2 100 places
for children (1 500 in medico-educational institutes [IMEs] and 600
in special education and home care services [SESSADs]) and 2 000
places for adults (in special residential care establishments [MASs],
residential care establishments for adults with disabilities [FAMs]
and newly created medical and social services for adults with
disabilities [SAMSAHs]) to date, only 52% of the planned places
have been set up, amounting to funding for only 2 120 places in
various establishments and services or a total budget of
78.5 million. Furthermore, AEH makes the claim which is not
contradicted by the Government that only 17 of the 30 measures
provided for in the plan have actually been implemented.
140. This problem is compounded by the fact, asserted by AEH and

not disputed by the Government, that since 2007, 65 400 posts
have been abolished in the state education system and the budget
for 2012 provides for another 14 000 to be abolished. This has led
to overcrowding in classrooms and, in turn, a need for even more
adjustment and training for teachers having to cope with children
and adolescents suffering from autism and already finding it
difficult to compromise and adapt.
141. Furthermore, in the Committees opinion, it is the frugal
management of the State's social policy budget that can
legitimately and logically be seen to account for circumstances
already referred to such as the low number of school assistants
assigned to children and adolescents with autism (86 above),
their appointment under precarious, low-paid contracts (87
above), the lack of access for young adults suffering from autism
to vocational training in specialised institutions for the occupational
and social rehabilitation of persons with disabilities (103 above)
and the few institutions effectively applying the educational care
methods (115-117 above).
142. The Committee considers that the limited public funding
allocated to social protection is liable to affect everyone who is
supposed to be covered by this protection equally, regardless of
whether they are with disabilities. It cannot therefore be claimed
that this conduct on the part of the state gives rise to a difference
in treatment of people with disabilities, including children and
adolescents with autism attending school, which is founded directly
on what makes them distinct from other disadvantaged persons.
143. However, in the specific field of disability, the Committee
considers that indirect discrimination can be taken to occur where
an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put
persons having a disability at a particular disadvantage compared
with other persons, unless it can be justified (see, mutatis
mutandis, the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European
Union (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2013, joined cases C-335/11
and C-337/11, Jette Ring and Lone Skouboe Werge, not yet
published in the Reports of Cases, 76 and 77).
144. Accordingly, the Committee considers that a person with a
disability is more likely to be dependent on community care,
funded through the State budget, in order to live independently
and in dignity, as compared with other persons in receipt of
community care. The Committee takes the view that budget
restrictions in social policy matters are likely to place people with
disabilities at a disadvantage and thus result in a difference in
treatment indirectly based on disability.
145. Consequently, the Committee holds that the limited funds in
the states social budget for the education of children and
adolescents with autism indirectly disadvantages these people with
disabilities and that this also constitutes a violation of Article E of
the Charter, taken in conjunction with Article 151.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Committee concludes:

- unanimously, that there is a violation of Article 151:
with regard to the right of children and adolescents with
autism to be educated primarily in mainstream schools ;
with regard to the right of young persons with autism to
vocational training;
because the work done in specialised institutions caring for
children and adolescents with autism is not predominantly
educational in nature.
- by 9 votes to 4, that there is a violation of Article E taken in
conjunction with Article 151, because families have no other
choice than to leave the national territory in order to educate their
children with autism in a specialised school, which constitutes a
direct discrimination against them;
- by 8 votes to 5, that there is a violation of Article E taken in
conjunction with Article 151, because the limited funds in the
states social budget for the education of children and adolescents
with autism indirectly disadvantages these people with disabilities.
Petros STANGOS
Luis JIMENA QUESADA Henrik KRISTENSEN
Rapporteur
President
Deputy Executive
Secretary
In accordance with Rule 302 of the Rules of the Committee:

- a dissenting opinion of Lauri LEPPIK, joined by Monika
SCHLACHTER, is appended to this decision.
Dissenting opinion of Lauri LEPPIK,
joined by Monika SCHLACHTER
The majority of the Committee has held that there has been a
violation of Article E taken in conjunction with Article 151
because the departure to Belgium to attend special schools of
persons with disabilities including autism gives rise to direct
discrimination against them, arising from Frances failure to cater

for their specific learning and communication needs at school
within its own national territory. While I agree with the Committee
on other findings of violation on the current Complaint, I consider
the above cited finding as not adequately grounded and therefore
have to dissent.
The majority refers to Committees decision on Autism-Europe v
France (Collective Complaint No 13/2002), where it held that ...
the Committee considers that Article E also prohibits all forms of
indirect discrimination. Such indirect discrimination may arise by
failing to take due and positive account of all relevant differences
or by failing to take adequate steps to ensure that the rights and
collective advantages that are open to all are genuinely accessible
by and to all. However, it then goes on, without substantive
reasoning, to conclude that the flow of persons with autism to
Belgium gives rise to direct discrimination on the ground of
disbility.
While I agree that an unjustified failure to provide reasonable
accommodation for education of children and adolescents with
autism would constitute discrimination on grounds of disability, in
the instant case the finding of direct discrimination by the majority
of the Committee is based on a remarkably relaxed interpretation
of less favourable treatment.
Firstly, the question of an appropriate comparator shall be
addressed. The notion of a comparator has a key role in
establishing discrimination. To establish that there indeed had been
a direct dicrimination, the Committee should have been able to
demonstrate that persons with autism have been exposed to some
detriment or disadvantage because of their disability to which
persons unaffected by such disability would either not have been
exposed or, in the case of indirect discrimination, have been
significantly less exposed.
Notably, the majority has based its finding of direct discrimination
on the observation that it had received no evidence or other
information concerning a cross-border flow from France to
Belgium of children, adolescents and young adults in good
intellectual and physical health, so as to undergo schooling or
vocational training /.../. The majority has thus chosen crossborder flows of persons with and without autism to serve as a
comparator. I fail to accept the cross-border flows as an
appropriate comparator. Cross-border flows of persons with and
without autism or other disabilities alone can neither establish nor
confute whether there has been a disadvantage due to disability.
An observation of a flow of persons with autism to attend special
schools in Belgium where the level of specialised training on autism
is considered to be higher, does not yet constitute sufficient
evidence to make a bold assessment that France has been
imposing on persons with autism a way of life different from the
treatment reserved for people not suffering from mental or
physical disability.
I would also point out the misfortunate reference by the majority

of the Committee to catering for specific needs within its own
national territory. Whereas indeed the Charter shall apply to the
territory of each Party and Article 15 of the Charter more
specifically has the aim of ensuring to persons with disabilities the
effective exercise of the right to independence, social integration
and participation in the life of the community, it can neither be
assumed, without any further considerations or evidence, that
opting for educational services across the border is to the
detriment of concerned persons and runs contrary to the
community participation principle given inter alia the changing
nature of modern communities which are no longer solely
geographical/territorial, nor can it be assumed that attending such
educational services within the borders of the national territory
would in itself foster community participation.
APPENDIX
Decision on admissibility

DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY
12 September 2012
The European Committee of Social Rights, committee of independent
experts established under Article 25 of the European Social Charter
("the Committee), during its 259th session attended by:
Luis JIMENA QUESADA, President
Monika SCHLACHTER, Vice-President
Jean-Michel BELORGEY, General Rapporteur
Csilla KOLLONAY LEHOCZKY
Andrzej SWIATKOWSKI
Lauri LEPPIK
Birgitta NYSTRM
Rhan IIK
Petros STANGOS
Alexandru ATHANASIU
Elena MACHULSKAYA
Giuseppe PALMISANO
Karin LUKAS
Assisted by Henrik KRISTENSEN, Deputy Executive Secretary,
Having regard to the complaint dated 29 March 2012, registered on
the 3 April 2012 as number 81/2012, lodged by the European
Action of the Disabled (the AEH) and signed by its Vice-President,
Mrs Marie-Jos SCHMITT, requesting the Committee to find that
the situation in France does not comply with Articles 10 and 15 of
the Revised European Social Charter (the Charter), as well as
with Article E in conjunction with each of these provisions;
Having regard to the documents appended to the complaint;
Having regard to the observations of the French Government (the
Government) on admissibility of 6 July 2012;
Having regard to the Charter and, in particular, to Articles 10, 15
and E, which read as follows:
Article 10 The right to vocational training
Part I: Everyone has the right to appropriate facilities for
vocational training.
Part II: With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right
to vocational training, the Parties undertake:
1 to provide or promote, as necessary, the technical and vocational
training of all persons, including the handicapped, in consultation
with employers and workers organisations, and to grant facilities
for access to higher technical and university education, based
solely on individual aptitude;
2 to provide or promote a system of apprenticeship and other
systematic arrangements for training young boys and girls in their
various employments;
3 to provide or promote, as necessary:
a adequate and readily available training facilities for adult
workers;
b special facilities for the retraining of adult workers

needed as a result of technological development or
new trends in employment;
4 to provide or promote, as necessary, special measures for the
retraining and reintegration of the long-term unemployed;
5 to encourage the full utilisation of the facilities provided by
appropriate measures such as:
a reducing or abolishing any fees or charges;
b granting financial assistance in appropriate cases;
c including in the normal working hours time spent
on supplementary training taken by the worker, at
the request of his employer, during employment;
d ensuring, through adequate supervision, in
consultation with the employers and workers
organisations, the efficiency of apprenticeship and
other training arrangements for young workers, and
the adequate protection of young workers generally.
Article 15 The right of persons with disabilities to
independence, social integration and participation in the life
of the community
Part I: Disabled persons have the right to independence, social
integration and participation in the life of the community.
Part II: With a view to ensuring to persons with disabilities,
irrespective of age and the nature and origin of their disabilities,
the effective exercise of the right to independence, social
integration and participation in the life of the community, the
Parties undertake, in particular:
1 to take the necessary measures to provide persons with
disabilities with guidance, education and vocational training in the
framework of general schemes wherever possible or, where this is
not possible, through specialised bodies, public or private;
2 to promote their access to employment through all measures
tending to encourage employers to hire and keep in employment
persons with disabilities in the ordinary working environment and
to adjust the working conditions to the needs of the disabled or,
where this is not possible by reason of the disability, by arranging
for or creating sheltered employment according to the level of
disability. In certain cases, such measures may require recourse to
specialised placement and support services;
3 to promote their full social integration and participation in the life
of the community in particular through measures, including
technical aids, aiming to overcome barriers to communication and
mobility and enabling access to transport, housing, cultural

activities and leisure.
Article E Non-discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights set forth in this Charter shall be
secured without discrimination on any ground such as race, colour,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national
extraction or social origin, health, association with a national
minority, birth or other status.
Having regard to the Additional Protocol to the European Social
Charter providing for a system of collective complaints ("the
Protocol");
Having regard to the Rules of the Committee adopted by the
Committee on 29 March 2004 at its 201st session and revised on 12
May 2005 at its 207th session, on 20 February 2009 at its 234th
session and on 10 May 2011 at its 250th session (the Rules);
Having deliberated on 12 September 2012;
Delivers the following decision, adopted on the above-mentioned
date:
1. The AEH alleges that France does not respect the right to
education of autistic children and adolescents and the right to
vocational training for young autistic adults, in violation of Articles
10 and 15 of the Charter, taken alone and/or in conjunction with
Article E because of differences in treatment in the areas of
education and vocational training between autistic people and
people with other disabilities.
THE LAW
2. The Committee observes that, in accordance with Article 4 of the
Protocol, which was ratified by France on 7 May 1999 and entered
into force for this State on 1 July 1999, the complaint has been
submitted in writing and concerns Articles 10, 15 and E of the
Charter, provisions accepted by France when it ratified this treaty
on 7 May 1999 and to which it is bound since the entry into force
of this treaty in its respect on 1 July 1999.
3. Moreover, the grounds for the complaint are indicated.
4. The Committee notes that, in accordance with Articles 1 b) and
3 of the Protocol, the AEH is an international non-governmental
organisation with participative status with the Council of Europe. It
is included on the list, established by the Governmental
Committee, of international non-governmental organisations that
are entitled to lodge complaints before the Committee.
5. As regards the particular competence of the AEH in the matter
of the complaint, which is not contested by the Government, the
Committee has examined the organisations Statute and notes
that, under Article 4 of this Statute, the AEH 's purpose is to

defend disabled persons, more particularly their full social and
occupational integration. The Committee consequently considers
that the organisation has submitted a complaint which falls within
its field of competence and thus has particular competence within
the meaning of Article 3 of the Protocol.
6. The complaint is signed by Ms Marie-Jos SCHMITT, VicePresident of the AEH, who, pursuant to the delegation of authority
given by the Executive Board meeting on 24 and 25 November
2001 and in accordance with Article 9 of the AEHs Statute, is
entitled to represent the complainant organisation. The Committee,
therefore, considers that the condition provided for in Rule 23 of
the Rules is fulfilled.
7. For these reasons, the Committee, on the basis of the report
presented by Petros STANGOS, and without prejudice to its
decision on the merits of the complaint,
DECLARES THE COMPLAINT ADMISSIBLE
In application of Article 71 of the Protocol, requests the Deputy
Executive Secretary to notify the complainant organisation and the
Respondent State of the present decision, to transmit it to the
parties to the Protocol and the States having submitted a
declaration pursuant to Article D2 of the Charter, and to make it
public.
Requests the Deputy Executive Secretary to publish the decision on
the Internet site of the Council of Europe.
Invites the Government to make written submissions on the merits
of the complaint by 31 October 2012.
Invites the AEH to submit a response to the Governments
submissions by a deadline which it shall determine;
Invites parties to the Protocol and the states having submitted a
declaration pursuant to Article D2 of the Charter to make
comments by 31 October 2012, should they so wish;
In application of Article 72 of the Protocol, invites the
international organisations of employers or workers mentioned in
Article 272 of the European Social Charter to make observations
by 31 October 2012.
Petros STANGOS
Luis JIMENA
Henrik KRISTENSEN
Rapporteur
QUESADA
President
Deputy Executive
Secretary
It is recalled that pursuant to Article 82 of the Protocol, this report will not be
made public until after the Committee of Ministers has adopted a resolution, or
no later than four months after it has been transmitted to the Committee of
Ministers, namely 5 February 2014.
2
This report may be subject to editorial revision.
This opinion can be consulted in French only on: http://www.autismefrance.fr/offres/file_inline_src/577/577_P_21095_1.pdf

4
This report can be consulted in French only on:

http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapportspublics/034000590/0000.pdf
5
This report can be consulted in French only on:

6
This study can be consulted in French only on:

http://www.sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/er396.pdf
7
In French only on: http://media.education.gouv.fr/file/47/5/1475.pdf
In French only on:

http://www.webcastors.net/icom/fiches/avis_scolarisation.pdf
9
In French only on: http://www.ccne-ethique.fr/docs/CCNEAVISN102_AUTISME.pdf

10
In French only on:

11
In French only on:

12
In French only on:

http://www.anesm.sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/reco_autisme_anesm.pdf
13
In French only on :
14
http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapportspublics//124000030/0000.pdf or
http://www.solidarite.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/rapport_mission_autisme_Valerie_Letard1.pdf
15
http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/201203/recommandations_autisme_ted_enfant_adolescent_interventions.pdf
16
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37973

European Committee of Social Rights - France Fails To Guarantee The Right To Education of Children and Adolescents With Autism

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

European Committee of Social Rights - France Fails To Guarantee The Right To Education of Children and Adolescents With Autism

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Comit europen des Droits sociaux

Strasbourg, 11 September 2013

European Committee of Social Rights

1. The complaint presented by European Action of the Disabled

persons with autism do not enjoy the right to vocational education

All children shall have the right to a school

It shall be supplemented, where necessary, by

2 Provide initial training;

qualifications issued by the latter shall also provide

appropriate, this plan shall establish the

A multidisciplinary team shall assess the compensatory

the State's failure constitutes a fault such as to

without discrimination and on the basis of equal

Opinion on care for persons with autism in France, report No. 47

Behavioural and developmental treatment are

drawing autism out of the purely private sphere is

strength; dont use it as your weakness. One red

disabilities to independent social integration, personal

A. Submissions of the parties

with disabilities, apply fully to children suffering from autism or

centres (CRAs), which have been established in all regions since

58. The Government begins by pointing to the significant progress

Code states that a disabled child with disabilities personal

up to 2016. This exceptional project, to which France is allocating

76. Secondly, the Committee recalls that in the aforementioned

Center (MDAC) v. Bulgaria, Complaint No. 41/2007, decision on

d'inclusion scolaire - CLIS) at the infants' and primary levels and

and adolescents with autism in mainstream schools and amount to

of 16 and 19 do not continue to attend school. Yet, the

mainstream qualifications awarded by higher colleges or

111. In the Committees view, the predominance of guidance,

117. The Committee concludes, in the first place, that between

1. The complainant organisation

in their lessons, they would be failing in their duties and liable to

differences or by failing to take adequate steps to ensure that the

140. This problem is compounded by the fact, asserted by AEH and

For these reasons, the Committee concludes:

Luis JIMENA QUESADA Henrik KRISTENSEN

In accordance with Rule 302 of the Rules of the Committee:

discrimination against them, arising from Frances failure to cater

I would also point out the misfortunate reference by the majority

European Committee of Social Rights

b special facilities for the retraining of adult workers

mobility and enabling access to transport, housing, cultural

that, under Article 4 of this Statute, the AEH 's purpose is to

This report may be subject to editorial revision.

This opinion can be consulted in French only on: http://www.autismefrance.fr/offres/file_inline_src/577/577_P_21095_1.pdf

This report can be consulted in French only on:

This report can be consulted in French only on:

This study can be consulted in French only on:

In French only on: http://media.education.gouv.fr/file/47/5/1475.pdf

In French only on:

In French only on: http://www.ccne-ethique.fr/docs/CCNEAVISN102_AUTISME.pdf

In French only on:

In French only on:

In French only on:

S-ar putea să vă placă și