Persons with disabilities and Constitution Abstract The position of persons with disabilities has adequate constitutional protection in the frame of social justice outlined by our constitutional charter in favor of weak people, and directed to pursue the effective social inclusion and direct participation of persons with disabilities to working life, especially at school and work, through a non-discriminatory, but supportive and emancipatory, legislative framework. In particular, in our Constitution the “recognition” and the “guarantee” (art. 2) of the rights of persons with disabilities, for the achievement of their “equal social dignity” (art. 3 al. Const.) that allows the “complete development of the human being” (art. 3 cpv. Const.), have a firm foundation precisely in that expansive parameter offered by the Constitution and represented by the completeness of the development of a human being. In this type of case, with particular reference to the persons with disabilities, precisely because of their natural diversity, all rights to the reduction of the inequalities should be recognized. It is a condition that cannot be disregarded: the realization of their right to equal opportunities, even in the light of those “binding duties of political, economic and social solidarity”, whose fulfillment is peremptorily required by art. 2 of the Constitution. The greatest contribution to a more precise definition of the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities has come from the incessant work of constitutional jurisprudence to guarantee and promote the rights of persons with disabilities. The Constitutional Court, in fact, has reinterpreted the provisions of the Constitution, in the light of the evolution of social conscience and legislation on the subject, and has ended up offering people with disabilities full protection at constitutional level, also explaining new dimensions, hitherto unknown, but expressive of values already underlying the same constitutional dictates. Expression of this trend is the innovative line of constitutional jurisprudence aimed at strengthening the protection of persons with disabilities that goes beyond their primary needs for material assistance, and which affirms the “new right” to “socialization” and effective participation in the social life of persons with disabilities. That’s a “meta-right” mostly based on the real recognition of the fundamental right to education. In order to guarantee the fundamental right to education of persons with disabilities both the ordinary courts and the administrative ones can be appealed. The Joint Chambers of the Supreme Court affirmed the jurisdiction of ordinary courts, while the Plenary Assembly of the Council of State affirmed that the jurisdiction belongs to administrative courts. However, these two Supreme Judges have evaluated different cases. The scarcity of available resources does not justify weakening the protection provided by this fundamental right. However, it is necessary to be aware that, in order that a discourse about real recognition and guarantee of the inviolable rights of that mass of disenfranchised constituted by the marginalized and the socially excluded – indeed, such as the persons with disabilities – be met, their meta-fundamental and inviolable right to enjoy rights, which is the right of persons with disabilities to enjoy the minimum conditions for a free and, above all, dignified existence, traceable to the evolution of the meaning of the constitutional provisions under articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, should be prejudicially ensured.
La posizione delle persone con disabilità trova una protezione costituzionale adeguata nell’ambito del programma di giustizia sociale delineato dalla nostra Carta costituzionale in favore dei soggetti deboli e rivolto a perseguire – attraverso una disciplina legislativa non discriminatoria, bensì di sostegno ed emancipatoria – l’effettiva inclusione sociale e la diretta partecipazione alla vita attiva del disabile, soprattutto a livello scolastico e lavorativo. In particolare, nella nostra Carta costituzionale il “riconoscimento” e la “garanzia” (art. 2 Cost.) dei diritti dei disabili, per il conseguimento di quella loro “pari dignità sociale” (art. 3 al. Cost.) che consenta il “pieno sviluppo della persona umana” (art. 3 cpv. Cost.), trova un saldo fondamento proprio in quel parametro espansivo offerto dalla Costituzione e rappresentato dalla pienezza dello sviluppo della persona umana. Nel caso di specie si tratta, appunto, delle persone con disabilità nei cui confronti, in ragione proprio della loro naturale diversità, vanno riconosciuti quei diritti alla riduzione delle disuguaglianze, condizione imprescindibile per realizzare il loro diritto ad avere pari opportunità, anche in forza di quei “doveri inderogabili di solidarietà politica, economica e sociale” di cui l’art. 2 Cost. richiede perentoriamente l’adempimento. Il maggior contributo ad una più precisa definizione della tutela dei diritti delle persone con disabilità è venuto dall’incessante opera di garanzia e promozione degli stessi esercitato dalla giurisprudenza costituzionale, che, nell’assecondare una rilettura delle disposizioni della Costituzione alla luce dell’evoluzione della coscienza sociale e della legislazione in materia, ha finito per offrire ad essi una piena protezione di livello costituzionale, esplicitandone peraltro dimensioni nuove, sinora sconosciute, ma pur sempre espressive di valori già sottesi allo stesso dettato costituzionale. Di tale linea di tendenza è espressione quell’innovativo filone della giurisprudenza costituzionale diretto a valorizzare una tutela della persona con disabilità che va ben al di là delle sue primarie esigenze di assistenza materiale, e che perviene ad affermare il “nuovo diritto” alla “socializzazione” ed all’effettiva e consapevole partecipazione alla vita sociale delle persone disabili. È questo un “meta-diritto” la cui (articolata) configurazione vede il suo primo pilastro nel riconoscimento del diritto fondamentale all’istruzione. Per la tutela del diritto fondamentale all’istruzione delle persone con disabilità si può adire sia il giudice ordinario sia il giudice amministrativo. La Corte di cassazione a Sezioni Unite ha affermato in questi casi la giurisdizione del giudice ordinario, mentre la Adunanza Plenaria del Consiglio di Stato quella del giudice amministrativo. I due Supremi Collegi, però, hanno valutato fattispecie diverse. La scarsità delle risorse disponibili non giustifica l’abbassamento del livello di garanzia di questo diritto fondamentale. Occorre, tuttavia, essere consapevoli che affinché si possa parlare di riconoscimento e di garanzia dei diritti inviolabili nei confronti di quella massa dei senza diritti, costituita dagli emarginati o dai socialmente esclusi, come appunto le persone disabili, è necessario pregiudizialmente garantire loro quel meta-diritto fondamentale ed inviolabile a poter usufruire dei diritti – riconducibile all’evoluzione di significato delle disposizioni costituzionali di cui agli artt. 2 e 3 Cost. – che si traduce nel diritto delle persone con disabilità a fruire di condizioni minime per un’esistenza libera e, soprattutto, dignitosa.
Colapietro, C., Girelli, F. (2020). Persone con disabilità e Costituzione. Napoli : Editoriale Scientifica.
Persone con disabilità e Costituzione
C. Colapietro;
2020-01-01
Abstract
Persons with disabilities and Constitution Abstract The position of persons with disabilities has adequate constitutional protection in the frame of social justice outlined by our constitutional charter in favor of weak people, and directed to pursue the effective social inclusion and direct participation of persons with disabilities to working life, especially at school and work, through a non-discriminatory, but supportive and emancipatory, legislative framework. In particular, in our Constitution the “recognition” and the “guarantee” (art. 2) of the rights of persons with disabilities, for the achievement of their “equal social dignity” (art. 3 al. Const.) that allows the “complete development of the human being” (art. 3 cpv. Const.), have a firm foundation precisely in that expansive parameter offered by the Constitution and represented by the completeness of the development of a human being. In this type of case, with particular reference to the persons with disabilities, precisely because of their natural diversity, all rights to the reduction of the inequalities should be recognized. It is a condition that cannot be disregarded: the realization of their right to equal opportunities, even in the light of those “binding duties of political, economic and social solidarity”, whose fulfillment is peremptorily required by art. 2 of the Constitution. The greatest contribution to a more precise definition of the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities has come from the incessant work of constitutional jurisprudence to guarantee and promote the rights of persons with disabilities. The Constitutional Court, in fact, has reinterpreted the provisions of the Constitution, in the light of the evolution of social conscience and legislation on the subject, and has ended up offering people with disabilities full protection at constitutional level, also explaining new dimensions, hitherto unknown, but expressive of values already underlying the same constitutional dictates. Expression of this trend is the innovative line of constitutional jurisprudence aimed at strengthening the protection of persons with disabilities that goes beyond their primary needs for material assistance, and which affirms the “new right” to “socialization” and effective participation in the social life of persons with disabilities. That’s a “meta-right” mostly based on the real recognition of the fundamental right to education. In order to guarantee the fundamental right to education of persons with disabilities both the ordinary courts and the administrative ones can be appealed. The Joint Chambers of the Supreme Court affirmed the jurisdiction of ordinary courts, while the Plenary Assembly of the Council of State affirmed that the jurisdiction belongs to administrative courts. However, these two Supreme Judges have evaluated different cases. The scarcity of available resources does not justify weakening the protection provided by this fundamental right. However, it is necessary to be aware that, in order that a discourse about real recognition and guarantee of the inviolable rights of that mass of disenfranchised constituted by the marginalized and the socially excluded – indeed, such as the persons with disabilities – be met, their meta-fundamental and inviolable right to enjoy rights, which is the right of persons with disabilities to enjoy the minimum conditions for a free and, above all, dignified existence, traceable to the evolution of the meaning of the constitutional provisions under articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, should be prejudicially ensured.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.