International protection of adults

Key points

The EESC:

• believes the proposal could have positive effects on the harmonisation of laws on the protection of persons with disabilities and vulnerable persons, but believes reference should, be made to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) rather than to the Hague Convention;
• proposes that monitoring start 3 years (instead of 10) after the adoption of the proposal;
• considers that, where the adoption of a legal measure against a person with a disability or a vulnerable person clearly violates human rights and international law, a Member State should be obliged not recognise such a measure;
• calls for a substantial revision of the text based on the legal principle of regulatory hierarchy, according to which the CRPD, in particular Articles 12 and 19 thereof, is the primary legal principle of reference;
• calls for the following definition to be amended: "vulnerable adults" (on page 4 of the proposal), to "adults with disabilities and vulnerabilities";
• rejects the first paragraphs of Articles 2 and 35 on the grounds that they contravene the CRPD, and suggests replacing "adults who ... are not in a position to protect their interests" with "adults who require support in taking decisions";
• rejects Article 2(3)(e) on the grounds that it contravenes the CRPD, and proposes replacing it with "the designation and functions of any person or entity entrusted with powers of representation";
• proposes that the introduction of Article 10 be replaced with the following: "In order to protect human rights, the rule of law and the Treaties of the European Union, a measure taken in another Member State cannot be recognised";
• rejects Article 21 and calls for it to be removed;
• proposes the following addition to Article 58: "Member States, as parties to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, should interpret and implement this Regulation in line with the Convention";
• calls for Article 66(1) to be amended to read: "3 years after the entry into force" instead of "10 years after the entry into force", and proposes that Article 66(2) be amended to read "1 year after the entry into force" instead of "3 years after the entry into force".