As we have seen so far, non-Judicial enforcement mechanisms can be a quick, simple and cost-efficient way to seek redress when your rights are violated. However, the outcomes are not always binding on or satisfactory to the parties. At this point, an alternative you can consider is judicial enforcement, which is carried out through national courts and tribunals, and in limited cases, the Court of Justice of the European Union. Although this is not in the scope of this Toolkit, one should not forget about the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), an international court that interprets the European Convention on Human Rights.

National courts play a central role in the enforcement of EU law, as they are obliged to implement EU law and protect the rights of the individuals under them. Whenever your rights are violated within a Member State, Courts must provide an effective redress (oblige cessation of illegal behaviour and / or provide compensation). To bring a certain case to court, you need to be aware that each Member State has its own procedures, remedies and sanctions.

Although the binding nature of court enforcement makes it a central venue to seek redress, the nature of the proceedings (which can be complex, time consuming and lengthy) and the costs (which mainly include attorney and court fees) are well-known barriers that can make access to it difficult. However, this should not discourage persons with disabilities and their representatives from enforcing their rights through national courts. A separate section will explore some tools that can facilitate access to justice.

• Air Passenger Rights Regulation: the airline Easyjet denied boarding to three wheelchair users in three different flights between 2008 and 2009. The airline argued that they could not travel unaccompanied. Claiming their rights under Regulation 1107/2006, the passengers took their case to Court, who ruled in their favour and fined Easyjet with 70.000 EUR and 2000 EUR in compensation for each passenger. Despite the appeals of the airline against this judicial decision, France highest court (Court de Cassation) confirmed it in 2015. During the process, the passengers received the support of the Association des paralyses de France (APF) (more information on the air passenger rights court case).
• Employment Equality Directive: an employee at a shipping company in Antwerpen, Belgium, was fired when he decided to return to work after a long sick-leave caused by depression / burn out. According to the company, there was no work for him. In what he considered a discriminative dismissal on disability grounds, the employee decided to take the case to court. The Belgian court, understanding that depression / burn out fell within the definition of disability under EU Directive on non-discrimination in the context of employment, analysed the case and found disability-based discrimination. Among others, the company had available vacancies and could not prove that the employee had been fired for economic reasons. The court also found lack of reasonable accommodation for not allowing his progressive return to work. The court ordered a compensation amounting to six months of gross salary.