The National Human Rights Commission of Korea would like to clarify its stance regarding the recent decision by the Seoul Central District Court as set forth hereunder.
The 46th Department on Criminal Case of the Seoul Central District Court(the "Court") decided at the damage suit filed by Mr. Kim and four others who are with physical disabilities against the State, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Seoul Metropolitan City, Gyeonggi Province and two bus companies that the two bus companies shall provide accommodation to persons with disabilities who are using the bus including elevating system for wheelchairs so that the plaintiff can use buses including the express red bus and direct bus. At the same time, the Court dismissed other charges filed against Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan City, Governor of Gyeonggi Province, the Republic of Korea, Seoul Metropolitan City, and Gyeonggi Province.
The NHRCK finds the decision meaningful as the court acknowledged that the bus companies bear responsibility to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities to enable them use red buses, and the decision would serve as an opportunity to further enhance the right to movement of persons with disabilities in the future.
However, the NHRCK finds it regrettable that the court ruled that ordering implementation of measures and provision of financial support for installation of elevating system as an active measure goes beyond the boundary of remedy that the court can order and is not an appropriate measure to rectify discrimination, while the court acknowledged that not providing reasonable accommodation prescribed under the Anti-disability discrimination act is a discriminatory act and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport, Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan City and Governor of Gyeonggi Province did not provide any plan or measure to install elevating system for wheelchair in buses.
On May, the NHRCK made recommendation to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Minister of Strategy and Finance, Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and heads of metropolitan cities to faithfully carry out their duties for promotion of transportation convenience of mobility disadvantaged persons prescribed under the anti-disability discrimination act, mobility disadvantaged persons act, CRPD, and act on welfare for persons with disabilities because there was not a single bus which persons with disabilities can use safely and conveniently even though 9 years have passed since the implementation of the Act on Promotion of the Transportation Convenience of Mobility Disadvantaged Persons in 28 January, 2006.
The NHRCK hopes that the decision serves as an opportunity to create an environment where persons with disabilities have equal access to all types of public transportation without any discrimination. In addition, even though the Court dismissed the case against the accused, the court acknowledged that non-provision of reasonable accommodation amounts to discriminatory acts prohibited under the anti-disability discrimination act, and the State and local government should fulfill their duties to provide all necessary technical, administrative, and financial support to enable persons with disabilities to use all types of public transportation safely and conveniently.
