CRPD/C/34/D/95/2022

GE.26-04641 (E) 280426 280426

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Views adopted by the Committee under article 5

of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication

No. 95/2022*, **

Communication submitted by:

Igors Rožalovskis (not represented by counsel)

Alleged victim:

The author

State Party:

Latvia

Date of communication:

18 April 2018 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decision taken pursuant to rule 68 of the

Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to

the State Party on 30 March 2022 (not issued in

document form)

Date of adoption of Views:

26 March 2026

Subject matter:

Termination of employment pending recognition

of disability

Procedural issues:

Incompatibility ratione materiae; lack of

substantiation of claims

Substantive issues:

Discrimination on grounds of disability;

employment rights

Articles of the Convention:

5 (1) and 27 (1) (a) and (h)

Article of the Optional Protocol:

2 (b) and (e)

1.1

The author of the communication is Igors Rožalovskis, a national of Latvia born in

1968. He claims to be the victim of violations by the State Party of articles 5 (1) and 27 (1) (a)

and (h) of the Convention. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on

30 September 2010. The author is not represented by counsel.

1.2

On 23 August 2023, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new

communications and interim measures, rejected the State Party’s request to examine the

admissibility of the communication separately from the merits.

* Adopted by the Committee at its thirty-fourth session (9–27 March 2026).

** The following members of the Committee participated in the consideration of the communication:

Muhannad Salah Al-Azzeh, Magino Corporán Lorenzo, Gerel Dondovdorj, Gertrude Oforiwa

Fefoame, Amalia Eva Gamio Ríos, Natalia Guala Beathyate, Kim Mi Yeon Kim, Alfred Kouadio

Kouassi, Abdelmajid Makni, Floyd Morris, Christopher Nwanoro, Markus Schefer and Hiroshi

Tamon. Pursuant to rule 60 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, Inmaculada Placencia Porrero did

not participate in the consideration of the communication.

United Nations

CRPD/C/34/D/95/2022

Convention on the Rights

of Persons with Disabilities

Distr.: General

29 April 2026

Original: English

CRPD/C/34/D/95/2022

2

GE.26-04641

A.

Summary of the information and arguments submitted by the parties

Factual background

2.1

On 8 June 1992, the author started working at Rīgas Ūdens Limited, a municipal water

supply company. On 29 December 2014, he stopped his work due to “temporary incapacity”

to continue his functions. On 19 June 2015, the author applied for recognition of his disability.

On 2 July 2015, Rīgas Ūdens issued a notice of termination of the employment contract based

on clause 11 of paragraph 1 of section 101 of the Labour Law. This provision stipulates that

an employer may terminate an employment contract in writing if the employee has not been

working due to temporary incapacity for more than six months, if the incapacity is

uninterrupted, or for one year within a three-year period, if the incapacity recurs with

interruptions, excluding any prenatal and maternity leave, as well as a separate period if the

reason for the incapacity is an accident at work whose cause is related to exposure to

environmental factors or an occupational disease. The notice, issued after the author’s

absence from work for more than six months, indicated that the dismissal would enter into

force no earlier than 20 July 2015.

2.2

On 26 June 2015, the State Labour Inspectorate conducted an evaluation known as a

“workplace hygiene description” in the context of the investigation into the author’s

occupational health, in which representatives of Rīgas Ūdens participated. According to the

author, at the time of the issuance of the termination notice, the company was therefore aware

of his occupational disease. On 20 July 2015, the State Medical Commission for the

Assessment of Health Condition and Work Ability issued an assessment in which it

recognized that, as at 19 June 2015, the author had a Group III disability caused by “illness”.

Subsequently, it extended its recognition of this disability until 18 June 2018. It also

determined that, from 22 May 2017 until 21 May 2019 and thereafter from 22 May 2019 until

21 May 2024, he had a Group III disability with 25% loss of ability to work due to

“occupational disease”. The Commission found that the author’s work had been harmful to

him. On 26 August 2015, the Occupational Disease Medical Commission, of the Centre for

Occupational and Radiological Medicine of Pauls Stradiņš Clinical University Hospital,

ascertained that the author had an occupational disease.

2.3

On 27 July 2015, the author filed a claim with Riga City Vidzeme District Court

against Rīgas Ūdens, requesting annulment of the termination of his employment and his

reinstatement. The author submitted that the termination had been illegal because the cause

of his incapacity to work was his occupational illness, and the termination should have been

agreed with both trade unions of which he was a member, not just one. On 21 September

2015, Riga City Vidzeme District Court rejected the author’s claim on the grounds that he

had been diagnosed with an occupational disease on 26 August 2015, that is, after the

termination of his employment, and that the employer’s alleged lack of communication with

the trade unions was not illegal. On an unspecified date, the author appealed the judgment of

Riga City Vidzeme District Court. On 25 January 2016, Riga Regional Court upheld his

appeal, noting that the employer had been aware of the pending investigation into an

occupational disease as a possible cause for his incapacity to work, which was later confirmed.

Consequently, the employer should have considered whether there were no obstacles to

dismissing him under the Labour Law. Thus, the Regional Court found that the notice of

termination had not been legally justified. On 4 July 2017, following a cassation appeal by

Rīgas Ūdens, the Supreme Court annulled the judgment of Riga Regional Court and

remanded the case for retrial. The Supreme Court noted that both conditions in the Labour

Law for the employer to be allowed to issue a notice of termination had been met when Rīgas

Ūdens issued the notice. The appeal court’s finding that Rīgas Ūdens had arbitrarily assumed

that the reason for his incapacity for work was not an occupational disease was therefore

contrary to the evidence in the case. Moreover, employers had neither the ability nor the

competence to assess the nature of a disease.

2.4

On 11 August 2017, Riga Regional Court issued a new judgment, rejecting the

author’s complaint against Rīgas Ūdens in its entirety. On 17 November 2017, the Supreme

Court dismissed the author’s cassation appeal. On 26 February 2018, the Constitutional Court

CRPD/C/34/D/95/2022

GE.26-04641

3

dismissed the author’s constitutional complaint, holding that no legal basis had been provided

for ascertaining that there had been a violation of the Constitution or of the author’s

fundamental rights.

Complaint

3.

The author submits that his dismissal was not grounded in domestic legislation and

that the courts failed to protect him, in breach of his rights under articles 5 (1) and 27 (1) (a)

and (h) of the Convention. He argues that he was dismissed despite the protection afforded

to him under section 109 of the Labour Law against being dismissed on grounds of his

disability, in violation of his rights under article 5 of the Convention. He notes that the

Committee has held that article 27 of the Convention implies an obligation on the part of

States Parties to create an enabling and conducive environment for employment, including

in the private sector.1 He affirms that the State Party’s failure to protect him from dismissal

is manifestly arbitrary, amounts to a denial of justice and constitutes a breach of article 27 of

the Convention. As a remedy, he requests a payment of 30,000 euros, the equivalent of three

years’ worth of his monthly salary of 800 euros.

State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

4.1

In its observations dated 27 May 2022, the State Party requests the Committee to

declare the communication inadmissible under article 2 (b) and (e) of the Optional Protocol

as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention and manifestly ill-founded.

4.2

The State Party submits that it did not discriminate against the author on grounds of

his disability and that it consequently did not breach his rights under article 5 (1) of the

Convention. The State Party argues that the communication concerns an individual dispute

with regard to labour law that was considered at all levels of the domestic courts, which,

having examined all evidence, assessed that the author’s dismissal was legally justified, as

he had been unable to work for six consecutive months and the existence of a disability or

occupational disease had not been established when the notice of termination was issued. The

author was thus treated in the same way as persons not assessed to have a disability or

occupational disease at the time of termination of their employment. According to the State

Party, the author asked the courts to assess the lawfulness of his dismissal with reference not

to his disability, but to the circumstances of the diagnosis of his occupational disease and the

lack of consent of both trade unions of which he was a member, circumstances which, the

State Party affirms, are outside the scope of the Convention. Moreover, article 27 of the

Convention does not prohibit the termination of employment of persons with disabilities per

se. Given that the author had not been diagnosed with an occupational disease or disability

at the time of his dismissal, there was no violation of that provision.

4.3

The State Party observes that the Labour Law prohibits discrimination against persons

with disabilities in the workplace and obliges employers to promote equal rights, adapt the

work environment and promote opportunities for persons with disabilities to establish

employment relationships, fulfil work responsibilities and be promoted and trained, insofar

as such measures do not impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. Neither disability

nor temporary incapacity for work may be used as justification to dismiss a person. At the

same time, the Labour Law allows the dismissal of an employee after six months of

continuous illness and non-performance of functions.

Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

5.

In his comments dated 28 September 2022, the author emphasizes that in its

assessment dated 20 July 2015, the State Medical Commission for the Assessment of Health

Condition and Work Ability noted that it recognized his disability as at 19 June 2015, that is,

prior to the issuance of the termination notice. The damage to his health was assessed to be

at 29 to 59%. He notes that the review process for occupational illnesses takes nine to twelve

months, whereas the law allows for termination of employment after six months of illness.

1 Gröninger et al. v. Germany (CRPD/C/D/2/2010), para. 6.2.

CRPD/C/34/D/95/2022

4

GE.26-04641

Moreover, he claims that Rīgas Ūdens was aware of the documentation issued by the State

Medical Commission regarding his temporary incapacity to work.

State Party’s additional observations

6.1

In its observations dated 20 December 2023, the State Party notes that the Disability

Law provides for the retroactive validity of decisions on disability status to give the person

concerned the right to a disability pension, social security benefits or relevant benefits. The

State Party reiterates that, at the time of the issuance of the termination notice, neither the

author nor his employer had any information to indicate that he would later acquire disability

status. The State Party observes that an employee diagnosed with an occupational disease is

provided with special protection, including in case of dismissal and in the form of a higher

amount of insurance indemnity. Thus, the author had the right to a higher amount of social

insurance payments and compensation for treatment and rehabilitation. He also received a

severance payment. Persons with disabilities also have the right to requalification and

professional rehabilitation if they can no longer continue their profession. The State Party

reiterates that the termination of the author’s employment was unrelated to his disability and

that it did not breach his rights under articles 5 or 27 of the Convention.

6.2

The State Party observes that over the period 2019–2022, the Ministry of Welfare

participated in a project under the Structural Reform Support Programme of the European

Commission to evaluate and improve the disability assessment system in Latvia. The

Ministry of Welfare is reassessing disability criteria to align with standards of the World

Health Organization.

B.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

7.1

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must

decide, in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol and rule 70 of its rules of

procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol.

7.2

The Committee notes the State Party’s submission that the communication is

inadmissible under article 2 (b) and (e) of the Optional Protocol as incompatible with the

provisions of the Convention and manifestly ill-founded. The Committee considers, however,

that the author’s allegations of violations of his rights under the Convention, emanating from

the confirmation by the State Party’s courts of his dismissal following six months of

“incapacity” to work and while the assessment of his disability was pending, raise issues of

substance under the Convention. The Committee further considers that the author has

sufficiently substantiated his claims under articles 5 (1) and 27 (1) (a) of the Convention for

the purpose of admissibility. However, the Committee considers that the author has not

provided sufficient information for it to consider his claim of a violation of article 27 (1) (h)

of the Convention. The Committee therefore considers that article 2 (b) and (e) of the

Optional Protocol does not constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of the author’s claims

under articles 5 (1) and 27 (1) (a) of the Convention. There being no other obstacles to

admissibility, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its

consideration of the merits.

Consideration of the merits

8.1

The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information

that it has received, in accordance with article 5 of the Optional Protocol and rule 73 (1) of

its rules of procedure.

8.2

The Committee notes the author’s claim that he was dismissed from his job at Rīgas

Ūdens in view of his disability and occupational illness, in breach of his rights under

articles 5 (1) and 27 (1) (a) and (h) of the Convention. The Committee also notes the State

Party’s argument that the dismissal was in accordance with domestic law as the existence of

a disability or occupational disease had not been established when the termination notice was

issued, and the author was thus treated in the same way as other persons not assessed to have

CRPD/C/34/D/95/2022

GE.26-04641

5

a disability or occupational disease; that the domestic courts reviewed all relevant evidence

and upheld his dismissal; and that he was provided with social insurance payments,

compensation for treatment and rehabilitation and a severance payment.

8.3

The Committee recalls that under article 2 of the Convention, “discrimination on the

basis of disability” is defined as any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of

disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition,

enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights and fundamental

freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. The Committee

also recalls that a law that is applied in a neutral manner may have a discriminatory effect

when the particular circumstances of the individuals to whom it is applied are not taken into

consideration. The right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights

guaranteed under the Convention can be violated when States, without objective and

reasonable justification, fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly

different. 2 The Committee further recalls that non-discrimination and equality are core

obligations of article 27, extend to the actions of third parties, such as the business sector,

and apply throughout the employment cycle, which includes recruitment, hiring and

employment, continuance of employment, training programmes and career advancement, as

well as searching and applying for work and exiting work.3

8.4

Concerning the State Party’s argument that the existence of the author’s occupational

illness had not been established when he was dismissed, the Committee recalls that, under

article 1 of the Convention, persons with disabilities include those who have long-term

physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which, in interaction with various

barriers, may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with

others. The Committee thus considers that formal recognition of disability is evidentiary

rather than constitutive. In the present case, the existence of the author’s disability and

occupational disease was established on 26 August 2015, that is, after his dismissal on 2 July

2015. However, the parties do not contest that the author was absent from his work for six

months because of his “incapacity” to work or that Rīgas Ūdens dismissed him on those

grounds, while aware that he had commenced the procedure for formal recognition of his

disability. The Committee thus notes that the author’s employer was fully aware that he had

impairments that had precluded him from performing his functions for six months, and that

he had applied for recognition of his disability. The Committee further notes that the State

Party’s courts rejected the author’s challenge to his dismissal on the grounds that there was

no recognition at the time that his absence was caused by a disability. However, the

Committee notes that the author had applied for such recognition and considers it arbitrary

for the State Party’s courts to have rejected his challenge on said grounds while another of

the State Party’s institutions was simultaneously considering the author’s application for such

recognition. Given the employer’s awareness of his impairments for more than six months

and the pending recognition of his disability, the Committee considers that the domestic

courts’ reliance on the absence of formal recognition to uphold his dismissal amounted to

discrimination on the basis of disability, in violation of his rights under articles 5 and 27 (1) (a)

of the Convention. The Committee considers that the State Party’s further observations that

the courts reviewed all relevant evidence before upholding his dismissal, and that he was

provided with social protection, are immaterial to the discriminatory nature of the courts’

confirmation of his dismissal.

8.5

In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the State Party has breached

the author’s rights under articles 5 and 27 (1) (a) of the Convention.

2 H.M. v. Sweden (CRPD/C/7/D/3/2011), para. 8.3; and S.K. v. Finland (CRPD/C/26/D/46/2018),

para. 9.5.

3 General comment No. 8 (2022), para. 16.

CRPD/C/34/D/95/2022

6

GE.26-04641

C.

Conclusion and recommendations

9.

The Committee, acting under article 5 of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the

State Party has failed to fulfil its obligations under articles 5 and 27 (1) (a) of the Convention.

The Committee therefore makes the following recommendations to the State Party:

(a)

Concerning the author, the State Party is under an obligation:

(i)

To provide him with an effective remedy, including effective reparation,

adequate monetary compensation for the violations of his rights under the Convention

and all the support that he requires to re-enter the labour market and find another job

if he so wishes;

(ii)

To publish the present Views, translate them into the State Party’s official

language and circulate them widely in accessible formats so that they are available to

all sectors of the population;

(b)

In general, the State Party is under an obligation to take measures to prevent

similar violations in the future. In that regard, the Committee requires the State Party to

ensure that the provisions of the Labour Law concerning termination of employment are fully

compliant with the Convention and to take measures to raise awareness of the right of persons

with disabilities to work on an equal basis with others.

10.

In accordance with article 5 of the Optional Protocol and rule 76 of the Committee’s

rules of procedure, the State Party should submit to the Committee, within six months, a

written response, including information on any action taken in the light of the present Views

and the recommendations of the Committee.