Persons with disabilities

The Supreme Court (TS) recognizes that a blind person can go to court to question the urban accessibility standards that may affect their interests. This person does not need to wait to suffer a specific injury in a public space to be able to appeal; it is enough that the regulation may influence the effectiveness of their right to accessibility.

The case began when an individual with visual impairment challenged several provisions of a ministerial order regarding accessibility and non-discrimination in urban public spaces. They did not intend to eliminate the entire regulation. Their criticisms focused on the single platforms , the location of grids and tree pits and certain elements related to commercial activities. In their opinion, those rules reduced the guarantees necessary for visually impaired people to safely use those spaces.

The National Court did not examine those criticisms. It considered that the order contained technical instructions to organize public spaces, not directed directly at individuals. Furthermore, it understood that the plaintiff had not explained in a concrete manner how they harmed those provisions to their safety or their access possibilities.

The TS, on the other hand, recognizes that the appellant can indeed raise that challenge . This person belongs precisely to the group that the regulation seeks to protect. It is not about allowing anyone to appeal due to a general disagreement with the norm, but rather to recognize the connection between their visual impairment and rules aimed at ensuring accessibility . In this context, the possible impact on their interests is sufficient, even if no harm has yet occurred in a specific location.

Now, being able to appeal does not mean winning the case. The Supreme Court also examined the merits of the matter, without returning the proceedings for a new resolution, and finally upheld the validity of the questioned provisions. Therefore, it recognized the plaintiff's right to challenge those rules before the courts, but did not annul the provisions that had been contested.

If you feel harmed and dissatisfied with an urban development action, our professionals can advise you in defending your rights