Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in PracticeA Comparative Analysis of the Role of Courts$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Lisa Waddington and Anna Lawson

Print publication date: 2018

Print ISBN-13: 9780198786627

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: July 2018

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198786627.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 28 March 2020



(p.153) 6 Germany
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Practice

Valentin Aichele

Oxford University Press

This chapter analyses the use and interpretation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in sixty-nine decisions of German federal courts between 2009 and mid-2016. German courts’ failure to be proactive in demonstrating ‘friendliness towards public international law’ when dealing with international human rights norms has been criticised. The National CRPD Monitoring Mechanism addressed problems in the application of the law. This chapter investigates the courts’ understanding of basic CRPD concepts, judicial techniques, interpretation methods and specific CRPD provisions. The importance of the concepts of self-executing provisions and direct effect is discussed. In quantitative terms, German courts have referred to the CRPD more often than any other UN international human rights instrument. Furthermore, in qualitative terms, federal courts have become more receptive towards the CRPD. However, it is clear that much of the potential for courts to use the CRPD in the realisation of the rights of persons with disabilities remains untapped.

Keywords:   Germany, constitutional friendliness, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), direct effect, human rights law, Görgülü decision, National CRPD Monitoring Mechanism, self-executing provisions

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .