THE WELSH GOVERNMENT AND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES AND THE PROMOTION OF EQUALITY FOR DISABLED PEOPLE IN RESPECT OF INDEPENDENT LIVING.

威尔士政府和威尔士国民议会以及促进残疾人在独立生活方面的平等。

• 批准号: 2118091
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: CARDIFF UNIVERSITY
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2018
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2018 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2118091
• 关键词: WELSH; GOVERNMENT; NATIONAL; ASSEMBLY; WALES

Domestically, the Equality Act is now relatively well established in terms of disability discrimination and apart from the "reversal" of Malcolm as a consolidating Act brought little radically new from the DDA 1995. The scope for radical change is therefore probably limited domestically and to a lesser extent via the ECJ, the traditional focus of domestic discrimination lawyers attacks on UK law.However significantly in Volkov v Ukraine and IB v Greece the ECHR has brought Article 8 and by definition itself into the employment arena, (albeit in the unfair dismissal rather than discrimination claim context).Following on therefore from Kiss v Hungary in which the dangers of "legislative stereotyping" were highlighted by the Court and other cases (eg Glor and Kiyutin) it is possible to see the germination of a relatively unexplored jurisprudence in the ECHR in the disability discrimination in employment field.If one links this with the potential impact of the UN Convention ratified 23/12/2010 by the EU this not only gives the ECJ greater scope, but also the ECtHR in judging baseline standards and reasonableness.Further, I would like to explore the issue that discrimination rights are generally individual and thereby enforcement is individual and thereby often limited by emotional and financial pressures. I would therefore like to research the position, both in terms of availability and effectiveness, in respect of collective enforcement of discrimination rights in Europe and see what lessons could be learnt from other jurisdictions. (In France for example there is in race discrimination a limited right to pursue discrimination claims collectively by the TU).

在国内，《平等法》在残疾歧视方面已经相对完善，除了“推翻”《马尔科姆法》作为一项综合性法案，与1995年《残疾歧视法》相比没有什么根本性的新内容。因此，彻底改变的范围可能在国内受到限制，在较小程度上通过欧洲法院受到限制，欧洲法院是国内歧视问题律师攻击联合王国法律的传统焦点。然而，在Volkov诉乌克兰和IB诉希腊两案中，欧洲人权法院将第8条和根据定义本身带入了就业竞技场，（尽管是在不公平解雇而不是歧视索赔的背景下）。法院和其他案件都强调了这一点（如Glor和Kiyalan）可以看到欧洲人权法院在就业领域的残疾歧视方面相对未被探索的判例的萌芽。如果将其与欧盟批准的联合国公约2010年12月23日的潜在影响联系起来，这不仅使欧洲法院有更大的范围，此外，我想探讨的问题是，歧视权利一般是个人的，因此执行是个人的，因此往往受到情感和经济压力的限制。因此，我想研究一下欧洲在集体执行歧视权利方面的情况，包括可用性和有效性，看看可以从其他司法管辖区吸取什么教训。(In例如，法国在种族歧视方面有一项有限的权利，由工会集体提出歧视索赔。