Supporting the Right and Opportunity of the Persons with Disabilities to Participate through the bodies of the Local Self-governments in Georgia

8/18/2019 Supporting the Right and Opportunity of the Persons with Disabilities to Participate through the bodies of the Local…

1/17

SUPPORTING THE RIGHT AND OPPORTUNITY

OF THE PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES TO

PARTICIPATE THROUGH THE BODIES OF THELOCAL SELFGOVERNMENTS IN GEORGIA

Monitoring Report of Strategic Litigation

Tbilisi2016


2/17

Project funded by theEuropean Union

Project funded by the Open SocietyGeorgian Foundation

The monitoring report is made within the framework of EU and Open Society

Georgia Foundation project “Supporting the right and opportunity of the

persons with disabilities to participate through the bodies of the local self-

governments in Georgia’’.

In 2014-2015 years, in Tbilisi city, Guria and Kvemo Kartli regions the projectwas implemented by non-governmental organizations: “42nd Article of

Constitution”, “Partnership for Human Rights” and “Accessible Environment

for Everyone”.

This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European

Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the

author and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

The opinions of the author/authors expressed in the informational material

may not express the position of “Open Society Georgia Foundation”, therefore

the foundation is not responsible for the content of the material.

The monitoring report is made by a non-governmental organization“Partnership for Human Rights”.

Author: Nana GochiasvhiliParticipants of report preparation: Ana Arganasvhili, Ana Abashidze

Translated by: Tengiz Nozadze


3/17

Table of Contents

Introduction............................................................................................................................4

I. Project review.......................................................................................................................51. About project................................................................................................................5

2. Goals of the Project....................................................................................................5

3. Project Tasks.................................................................................................................5

4. Project Target Groups................................................................................................5

II. Community Communication Strategy.......................................................................6

1. Consultations...............................................................................................................6

2. Recommendations.....................................................................................................82.1. Recommendation for the Commission of Social Affairs of Ozurgeti

City Assembly on the Changes that should be Made in the Charter............8

2.2. Recommendation for the Education, Youth and Social Affairs...............8

Department of Ozurgeti Municipality on Pre-school Inclusive Education

2.3. Recommendation on the Adaptation of Physical Environment of

Student Housing..............................................................................................................9

2.4. Recommendation on the Adaptation of Physical Environment of theShelter for the Homeless People................................................................................9

2.5. Recommendation on the Adaptation of Physical Environment of the

University Metro Station.............................................................................................10

2.6. Recommendation on the Availability of Agendas of the Meetings of

Council and Commission............................................................................................11

2.7. Recommendation Related to the Procurement of New Public

Transport in Tbilisi.........................................................................................................112.8. UPR Report about the Gaps in the Process of the Protection of Rights

of Persons with Disabilities........................................................................................12

3. Communication.........................................................................................................12

3.1. Administrative Proceedings...............................................................................12

3.2. Proceedings in the Court....................................................................................14

3.2.1. D.Ch. Against Gardabani Municipality......................................................14

3.2.2. S.K. against Kutaisi City Municipality..........................................................153.2.3. K.N. Against Tbilisi city Municipality Council..........................................16

III. Conclusion........................................................................................................................17


4/17

4

INTRODUCTION

The monitoring report describes the activities of strategic proceedingsimplemented within the project “Supporting the right and opportunity ofthe persons with disabilities to participate through the bodies of the local

self-governments in Georgia’’ and these are united in the document of thecommunity communication strategy.

The project was implemented in 2014-2015 in Tbilisi city, Rustavi city, Ozurgeticity and Ozurgeti municipalities with the financial assistance of the EU andOpen Society Georgia Foundation.

The goal of the monitoring report is to evaluate the correspondence of the

activities implemented within the community communication strategy withthe project goals and tasks.

The evaluation of the community communication strategy is based ona logical frame, that consists of the project goals and tasks, indicators ofachieving them, possible results and list of activities with appropriateindicators needed to achieve these results.

The monitoring report of strategic proceedings consists of three chapters. The first chapter includes the review of project planned activities, goals, tasksand project target groups.

The second chapter includes the review of the community communicationstrategy, where the activities implemented within the strategic proceedingsare included: Legal consultations of a non-governmental organization“Partnership for Human Rights” made within the project, recommendationsprepared for the protection of rights of persons with disabilities living in

target municipalities, produced administrative and court cases.

The third chapter is a summary, where there is given the analysis of the resultsand challenges achieved by strategic proceedings.


5/17

5

I. PROJECT REVIEW

1. About project

The project “Supporting the right and opportunity of the persons with

disabilities to participate through the bodies of the local self-governmentsin Georgia’’ was being implemented from February 1, 2014 until January 31,2016 in three regions of Georgia: Guria, Kvemo Kartili and Tbilisi city.

The main goal of the project was to ensure the involvement of persons withdisabilities in the activities of the local self-government and decision makingprocess, to promote the realization of their civil and political rights – to access,take part and get involved in the activities of the local self-government.

2. Goals of the Project

► Active involvement of persons with disabilities of target municipa-lities in the activities of the self-government and decision makingprocess;

► To inform the staff of the local self-government and increase theirpossibilities for planning the programs adjusted to the needs andpriorities of the persons with disabilities living in their municipalities.

3. Project Tasks

► To increase the possibilities of the persons with disabilities andmobilize the human resources in target municipalities;

► To achieve accountability and transparency of the local self-government activities.

► Research of the individual needs and priorities of the persons with

disabilities in target municipalities and further advocating;

► To develop and implement community communication strategy bythe self-government bodies and citizens of these municipalities;

► To make the society and the local self-government bodies increasethe awareness of the rights of persons with disabilities and theinvolvement of citizens in the activities of the local self-government;

4. Project Target Groups

► Persons with disabilities;

► Parents of children with disabilities;


6/17

6

► Organizations of persons with disabilities;

► Non-government organizations operating in the target municipa-lities;

► Representatives of the local self-governments of the targetmunicipalities;

II. COMMUNITY COMMUNICATION STRATEGY

One of the goals of the project was to develop a community communicationstratety that consisted of three components: giving consultations to personswith disabilities in target municipalities, develop recommendations for theproblems raised on public discussions, trainings and working meetings by

persons with disabilities and deliver them to local self-governments andcommunication, the goal of which, in case of address from persons withdisabilities, was to search the ways of solving problems by using strategicproceedings.

It’s true that the mission of the project planned activities was to solve thelong-term problems of all persons with disabilities in target municipalities,but at the same time, to achieve the goals and tasks of the project, it wasimportant to solve the problems effectively and timely by using strategicproceedings.

To achieve the result the needed activity planned by the logical frame wasto develop a community communication stratety that consisted of thefollowing indicators:

► Consultations;

► Recommendations;

► Communication.

1. Consultations

About 100 consultations were made during the project. Consultations weremainly done by telephone. For this reason consultations were also madeabout the individual cases raised by the participants of trainings, publicdiscussions and working meetings. They concerned the following topics:

► Appointment of social assistance for persons with disabilities andillegal removal of assistance (7 cases):


7/17

7

► Provide shelters and medicines (2 cases);

► Gaps in the criteria of the self-government program of house roofing;

► Determination of a status for children with disabilities (4 cases)

► Involvement in the state program of provision with wheelchairs (3

cases);

► Transfer of a real estate to the Rustavi Day Center for temporary useby the local self-government. (10 persons with disabilities and theirparents and 7 employees of the day center will use the product of theconsultations);

► The issue of funding the Ozurgeti city Day Center of persons withdisabilities by the local self-government. The difficulties arose whenthe city self-government and the community were separated and it

became necessary to change the previous funding model. 15 personswith disabilities above 18 years and their parents and 10 employeeswill benefit from the results of these consultations (2 cases);

► Majority of persons with disabilities in Rustavi city can’t get thevouchers of day center that are allocated for them. Consultationswere held with 5 parents about how to get these vouchers;

► Consultations were done with parents of about 15 persons withdisabilities how they can be retrained to become a special educator,

they got information about successful cases;► Difficulties connected to getting driving licenses for persons with

disabilities;

► Procedures needed to get included in the sub-programs ofcommunity organizations;

► Reception of children with disabilities in kindergartens;

► Getting a single help from the municipal budget for children with

disabilities (within the existing project frames);

► Provision of homeless people with shelters by the self-government;

► Inclusion of children with disabilities in school;

► Allocation of an assistant for persons that need psycho-social help(24 cases);

► Inclusion of children with disabilities in a specialized art school (1case);

► Getting a voucher of a program of early development (9 cases)

► Funding the rehabilitation course of children with disabilities by thelocal self-government ( 2 cases)


8/17

8

► An issue of opening a kindergarten in Nasakirali village in Ozurgetimunicipality by the local self-government (1 case)

► An issue of employment of persons with disabilities (2 cases)

► Funding of the rehabilitation program for children with disabilitiesby the local self-government (3 cases)

► Getting a service of a special educator in a kindergarten (2 cases);

► Cases of violence in kindergartens (2 cases);

2. Recommendations

8 written recommendations were prepared for the local self-governmentsof target municipalities during the project. Their goal was to express the

opinion about the main issues determined by the project executing groupand persons with disabilities that were included in the project.

2.1. Recommendation for the Commission of Social Affairs of

Ozurgeti City Assembly on the Changes that should be Made in

the Charter

On September 12 2014, the organization “Partnership for Human Rights”

addressed the commission of social affairs of Ozurgeti city municipality withthe recommendation (№05/147-14) that concerned the changes that shouldbe made in the regulation of social affairs of Ozurgeti city municipalityassembly. The main goal of these changes was the correspondence of theissues of persons with disabilities in the regulation of the commissions withthe UN convention of rights of persons with disabilities.

The changes concerned the issues connected with education, culture, sport,

pre-school education, availability of physical environment.

2.2. Recommendation for the Education, Youth and Social Affairs

Department of Ozurgeti Municipality on Pre-school Inclusive Ed-

ucation

On September 12 2014, the organization “Partnership for Human Rights”addressed the department of youth and social affairs of Ozurgeti city

municipality with the recommendation (№05/146-14).

The recommendations basically concerned the basic directions of creating a


9/17

9

plan for individual development of children with disabilities, the importanceof the participation of corresponding specialists in full and all-aroundinvolvement of children with disabilities in kindergartens, the importance ofretraining the staff of kindergartens.

According to the letter (№06/86-14/05/147-14) received on August 24, 2014the department of Education, Youth and Social Affairs of Ozurgeti municipalityis ready to co-operate with the organization “Partnership for Human Rights”and follow its recommendation.

2.3. Recommendation on the Adaptation of Physical Environment

of Student Housing

On August 4, 2014 the information about starting the construction ofstudent housing was spread on the official web-page of the ministry ofRegional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia. On August 25, 2014 theorganization “Partnership for Human Rights” addressed the Fond of MunicipalDevelopment of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructureand requested the information about the correspondence of constructionworks with the international and Georgian national legislation about theadaptation of physical environment of public objects and the standards of UN

convention and national legislation about rights of persons with disabilities.

According to the letter (№2648-გ) received on September 23, 2014 from themunicipal development fond of the Ministry of Regional Development andInfrastructure of Georgia we cleared out that the construction works of thestudent housing is in full correspondence with the issues of the adaptationof physical environment of public objects, that are based on the regulation#41 of January 6, 2014 of Georgian government about “Adoption of technicalregulation about architectural and planned elements and the arrangementof physical space for persons with disabilities”.


of the Shelter for the Homeless People

On February 3, 2014 the commission working on the problems of homelesspeople of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia

made a decision about building a shelter for homeless on the territory DidiLilo.


10/17

10

On July 23, 2014 the organization “Partnership for Human Rights” addressedthe fond of municipal development of Georgia with a letter (№05/104-14)and requested the information about building standards, availability of thebuilding for persons with disabilities, nutrition of people living in the shelter,hygiene, regulative documents of monitoring of the health condition. The

organization also provided them with the information about the standardsand demands that are considered in the UN convention of persons withdisabilities and the national legislation.

Regarding the fact that the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs ofGeorgia was directly involved in the project, the organization “Partnershipfor Human Rights” addressed the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairsof Georgia on September 12, 2014 and requested the information about

whether the needs of persons with disabilities are considered during theconstruction of the shelter for homeless or not.

The letter (№2271-გ) received from the fond of municipal development ofGeorgia on August 15, 2014 reveals that the special construction norms andstandards haven’t been processed yet. However the project considers theadapted infrastructure and ramps for persons with disabilities.

According to the correspondence (№01/78220) received on September 26,2014 from the ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia, duringthe construction there will be used the regulation #131 of February 7, 2014about “Technical regulation about adoption of minimal standards of thefunctioning of a shelter of vulnerable people”.


of the University Metro Station

On June 30, 2014 the information was spread through social networks abouttender for building the metro station “University”. The information was spreadon the official web-page of state procurements agency on June 26, 2014.

One July 2, 2014 the organization “Partnership for Human Rights” addressedthe Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia with aletter (№05/86-14) and requested the information about the correspondenceof the tender offer with the demands of the international and Georgian

legislation about the adaptation of physical environment.

According to the answer received on July 31, 2014 the issue of adaptation of


11/17

11

physical environment isn’t considered in the construction works of the metrostation. However there’s an additional sump where an adapted entrance canbe arranged. Also they think that by the adaptation of one metro station thesituation will not change, because the physical environment of other stationsis still unavailable for persons with disabilities.

On August 25, 2014 the organization “Partnership for Human Rights”addressed Tbilisi city Hall with a letter (№05/130-14), gave information aboutthe answer received from the municipal development fond and requestedthe information about the planned activities for the adaptation of metrostations.

According to the correspondence (№01/4598) received on September 26,

2014 from Tbilisi Transportation Company the adaptation of metro stationsisn’t included in current plans because this is connected with big expenses.

2.6. Recommendation on the Availability of Agendas of the Meet-

ings of Council and Commission

One of the problems during the project was that the local self-governmentbodies use to spread information about the meetings of assembly and

commission late on previous day and that makes difficult to organize visits.In addition, they sometimes don’t spread the information at all and they’reannounced only after the end of the meetings.

The organization “Partnership for Human Rights” addressed Tbilisi cityassembly with a recommendation about this issue (05-374-15).

2.7. Recommendation Related to the Procurement of New Public

Transport in Tbilisi The information was spread in social network that Tbilisi city Hall and thegovernment of Japan signed an agreement about the procurement of newpublic buses in Tbilisi.PHR addressed Tbilisi city Hall with a recommendation that the main conditionof the agreement should be the issue of the adaptation of public transportand requested information how these issues are included in the agreement.


12/17

12

2.8. UPR Report about the Gaps in the Process of the Protection of

Rights of Persons with Disabilities

PHR together with its partner non-governmental organizations prepared aUPR report about the rights of persons with disabilities. The basic problems

for persons with disabilities in Georgia were determined. These are theissues of capacity for work, shifting from medical model to social model,employment, adaptation of environment, availability of services, gaps inhabilitation/rehabilitation programs and the necessity of spreading them onpersons with disabilities older than 18, consideration of individual needs ofpersons with disabilities in the general insurance package.

3. Communication

82 cases were studied during the strategic proceedings and the administrativebodies of target municipalities were addressed to react on them. Three ofthem were transmitted to court.

On the first stage, if persons with disabilities, or their parents addressed,the administrative proceedings were to study the case, search the usablelegislation, process and determine the correspondence with factualcircumstance.

The second stage of the administrative proceedings was to prepare anappropriate letter and address the local self-government with the demand tostudy the case or provide with additional information. If after the appeal thelocal self-government started to study the case and solve the problem, theproceedings stopped. In other cases, according to the content of the concretecase, an administrative complaint or administrative action were prepared.

3.1. Administrative Proceedings

► Discrimination on the ground of limited abilities – Abusing a childwith disability in public transport;

► Involvement of an old woman with disability living in Ozurgeti citymunicipality in the sub-program of community organizations;

► A non-appropriate environment in pre-school educationalinstitutions in Tbilisi city;

► Appointment of social assistance and illegal removal (10 cases);

► Involvement of children with disabilities in habilitation/rehabilitation


13/17

13

sub-programs;

► Allocation of living space for parents with disabilities.

► Involvement in the sub-program of wheelchairs (2 cases)

► Unitary funding of medical research of a child with disability from the

budget of the local self-government (3 cases)

► Consideration of needs of persons with disabilities in free eateries in Tbilisi city.

► Employment of a persons with disability and allocation of livingspace;

► Exclusion of persons with disabilities from a sub-program of earlydevelopment of children (16 cases);

► Admission of children with autism spectrum at school, problems

related to opening integrated classes (4 cases)

► Problems related to getting supporting means (hearing aid);

► Providing the persons with disabilities over 18 and living in closedinstitutions with housing by the local self-government (2 cases)

► Involvement of a family living in hard social conditions in appropriatestate and self-government programs (6);

► Declining to admit a child with disability in kindergarten and

corresponding proceedings;► Issues related to the execution of the area given to the organizations

working on issues of persons with disabilities by the local self-government;

► An issue of allocation of area for a day center of persons withdisabilities by the self-government;

► A tender related to the construction of a new kindergarten andconsideration of the needs of children with disabilities;

► An administrative complaint for excluding a child from the earlydevelopment program of children;

► An issue of allocating a living space for homeless persons withdisabilities by the self-government (3 cases)

► An issue of satisfying a woman with psycho-social need with ahousing, problems related to the execution of court decision;

► A family living in not appropriate living conditions, one of them is a

person with disability;► Violation towards an elderly woman with disability;

► Registration of a family in a common base of vulnerable families and


14/17

14

incorrectly counted points (4);

► A right of accessibility of education of a child with disability (2);

► Providing sticks for mandatory sugar measuring device subscribedby a doctor for a child with diabetes;

►Construction of a new housing complex on the Tbilisi sea territory in Tbilisi city municipality and the correspondence of the project to thedemands of international and national legislation for the adaptationof physical environment of public objects;

► An issue of ramps installed inappropriately with standards at theliving buildings in Nadzaladevi district in Tbilisi city municipality;

► Restrict parent’s rights of a parent with disability, considered asincapable;

► An issue of studying an effective pre-school inclusive educationalprogram for children with disabilities in a kindergarten in Rustavicity municipality, particularly an issue of getting a service of a specialeducator;

► Providing a lonely woman with disability with a shelter and givingmedicines needed for a child;

► Gaps in the self-government program of roofing the dwelling houses;

► Determine a status of a child with disability and grant pension;

► Inclusion in the state sub-program of provision with wheelchairs (2cases);

► Obstruction of getting inclusive pre-school education;

3.2. Proceedings in the Court

Three proceedings were implemented at general court with the aim ofprotecting rights of persons with disabilities and the defendants were thelocal self-government bodies.

3.2.1. D.Ch. Against Gardabani Municipality

Factual background of the case: B.G. addressed the non-governmental or-

ganization “Partnership for Human Rights” and asked to assist in the process

of getting housing. B.G. is a person with disability with a diagnose of light

form of mental retardation, he has been living in orphanage since childhood

and now lives in a boarding house of persons with disabilities.

According to the assessment of the psychologist and psychiatrist of the


15/17

15

institution B.G. has all necessary skills for independent living, he’s employed,however the obstacle for him is the absence of his own house.

Used law: After studying the case we found out that the second part ofthe Article 27 of Georgian law about “Social protection of persons with

disabilities” considers the obligation of the local self-government bodies toprovide those persons with disabilities that don’t need boarding house anymore with the housing.

Proceedings: Based on the statement of B.G. there was prepared a letterin name of the governor of Gardabani municipality and the Gardabanimunicipality governance was requested to fulfill its obligation within thesecond part of Article 27 of Georgian law about “social protection of persons

with disabilities” and provide B.G with living space.

According to the answer received from the Gardabani municipality theydon’t have enough funds for providing B.G. with housing.

The non-governmental organization “Partnership for Human Rights” preparedan administrative act that considered the annulment of the individualadministrative-legal act issued by the Gardabani municipality and issuing anew act with the aim of provision of B.G. with housing.

Result: Merits of the case are over and court decision must be declared.

3.2.2. S.K. against Kutaisi City Municipality

Factual background of the case: L.N. addressed the non-governmentalorganization “Partnership for Human Rights” and asked to assist in the processof getting housing., L.N. grew up in orphanage and then she was taken to a

boarding house of persons with disabilities. L.N. is a person with disabilitywith a diagnose of light form of mental retardation.

L.N. is in registered marriage and has a child. However, because of theabsence of her own housing and according to the Georgian legislation thatprohibits living of children in boarding house, her child is involved in fostercare program.

According to the assessment of the psychologist and psychiatrist of

the institution L.N. has all necessary skills for independent living, she’semployed together with her husband, looks after herself and her husbandindependently.


16/17

16

The only obstacle for her to live independently with her family is the absenceof housing.

Used law: The second part of the Article 27 of Georgian law about “Socialprotection of persons with disabilities” considers the obligation of the local

self-government bodies to provide those persons with disabilities that afterrehabilitation don’t need boarding house any more with the housing.

Proceedings: Based on the statement of L.N. there was prepared a letterin name of the Kutaisi city mayor and the Kutaisi city hall was requestedto fulfill its obligation within the second part of Article 27 of Georgian lawabout “social protection of persons with disabilities” and provide L.N. withliving space. The reason why we chose the Kutaisi city hall was that L.N. has

seasonal job in Kutaisi city and if she is provided with housing there, she willnot have to search for job any more.

According to the answer received from the Kutaisi city hall they don’t haveenough resources for providing B.G. with housing.

The non-governmental organization “Partnership for Human Rights” preparedan administrative act that considered the annulment of the individualadministrative-legal act issued by the Kutaisi city municipality and issuing anew act with the aim of provision of L.N. with housing.

Result: According to the court decision the suit of L.N was satisfied andKutaisi city hall was obliged to give her housing.

3.2.3. K.N. Against Tbilisi city Municipality Council

Factual background of the case: A claimant A.B. at 14:20 on December

4, 2015 stopped his own car at a special parking place for persons withdisabilities. The motive of this was that the claimant was serving a personwith severe disability K.N. whom that parking space is for. To make themotive of parking at this place clear for an authorized person of LTD “CT-Park”,K.N. placed a certificate of persons with disability issued by the Ministry ofLabor, Health and Social Care on the front windshield. After 33 minutes fromparking, an authorized person of LTD “CT-Park imposed a fine for the car ofthe claimant A.B. based on the 6th part of the Article 125(2) of Georgian Code

on Administrative Offences and the car was taken to a special standing.

Subject of dispute: Subject of dispute is the disciminative interferencein using special parking places by persons with disabilities in Tbilisi city


17/17

that disproportionately limits the rights of independent living and freedevelopment of persons with disabilities that don’t have their own motorvehicle.

Plaintiff’s claim: Annulment from the day of approval of the first, third, fifth,

seventh, eights and tenths paragraphs and “g” sub-paragraph of the eleventhparagraph of the decision №9-48 of Tbilisi city Council of August 03, 2007“About regulation of parking of transport facilities on Tbilisi city territory”and also the recognizable mark of parking spaces of persons with disabilitiesdetermined by this decision and regulate them in correspondence with theGeorgian constitution, Georgian law “about traffic”, Georgian law “Socialprotection of persons with disabilities” and the UN 9th and 19th conventionsabout the rights of persons with disabilities.

Result: The case is in charge at the Tbilisi City Court.

III. CONCLUSION

The project executing group fulfilled all activities determined by the indicatorsof execution of the community communication strategy. This consideredthe promotion of rights of persons with disabilities by corresponding

recommendations, legal consultations and strategic proceedings. Its goalwas to quickly and effectively solve the problems of persons with disabilitiesby individual proceedings and recommendations at the level of the self-government.

The indicator of the execution of the community communication strategydetermined by the logical frame was the involvement of up to 250 peoplein the project. According to the reached results, 182 people were involved

in the community communication strategy by individual statements andconsultations. However in addition to the individual applicants, their familymembers were also included in majority of cases, such as social assistancefor vulnerable family, inclusion of a child in kindergarten, define a status for achild with disability, allocation of space for Rustavi day care center and createa board of persons with disabilities at the self-government level. One of thegoals of the community communication strategy was to prepare and giverecommendations to the self-government bodies about the protection ofrights of persons with disabilities. 8 such recommendations were preparedduring the project. This means that more than 250 people were involved inthe project of society communication, among them persons with disabilitiesand also their family members.

Documents

Supporting the Right and Opportunity of the Persons with Disabilities to Participate through the bodies of the Local Self-governments in Georgia