The main goal of strategic litigation is to use the case of a particular client to bring about broader social, economic and political change. This can be done by setting a precedent for the outcome in similar cases, by raising public awareness or by putting pressure on relevant actors to take measures to prevent, among others, discrimination. If successful, strategic litigation can have a positively impact in society beyond the specific persons involved in the case. Although the goal is to go to court for a legal victory, by exposing injustice and raising awareness in society, you can also win by losing the case or when there is a settlement reached before going to court. The way you communicate about your strategic litigation is important.

How to act

• United Kingdom: Ms Coleman brought a claim against her employer for unlawful discrimination on the grounds of her son’s disability. Since the employer claimed that associative discrimination was not prohibited by UK non-discrimination law, the Tribunal decided to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice, which ruled that Directive 2000/78/EC prohibited discrimination on the grounds of disability and that it was not necessary for the person who suffered discrimination to be disabled. The case was strategic in the sense that it clarified that associative discrimination was also prohibited under current EU legislation, thus affecting the outcome of similar cases.
• United Kingdom: In 2008, Mr Stott booked a flight from the United Kingdom to Greece operated by Thomas Cook Tour Operators Limited. As a result of his disability, he required help and support from his wife and made the proper arrangements to seat together. In the return flight, he did not receive appropriate assistance, which caused distress to him and his wife. Based on existing regulations – like Regulation 1107/2006 on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities when traveling by air – the case made it to the UK’s Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the applicable framework for compensation was the Montreal Convention, which does not foresee compensation for injury to feelings. Although the case was dismissed, the Supreme Court was extremely critical with the behaviour of Thomas Cook and suggested that it would be desirable for the state parties of the Convention to consider its amendment (more info). As highlighted by Equinet, although the case was lost, the Court’s critical statement has been useful in pursuing the issue further with the UNCRPD committee.
• Ireland: In Ireland, a citizen with a visual disability successfully alleged, at the Irish High Court, that the absence of means to vote independently violated his right to vote in secret (The case of Sinnott v Minister for the Environment [2017] IEHC 214, the High Court.). Later, the Electoral Reform Bill that passed in 2020 would further consolidate existing legislation and establish a national electoral management body (EMB). Also, as good practice, consultations took place on the contents of the law, including compliance with Article 29 of the CRPD. More information on Sinnott’s case.
• Lithuania: in 2018, a Court ruled in favour of two wheelchair users over accessibility barriers in polling stations. The plaintiffs received moral damage compensation from the municipalities that held the elections. The court ruled that lack of funds cannot be grounds for non‐compliance with mandatory legal provisions concerning the elections. Furthermore, the court also disagreed with the defendants’ assertions that the concerned persons with disabilities could use alternative voting methods (e.g., early or mobile voting at home). It noted that choosing alternative voting methods for applicants is a right but not an obligation, and that the relevant public authorities must ensure proper accessibility voting conditions. This ruling led to legal amendments that included obligatory accessibility requirements at polling stations.