EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 6.9.2023

SWD(2023) 290 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

establishing the European Disability Card and the European Parking Card for persons with disabilities

{COM(2023) 512 final} - {SEC(2023) 305 final} - {SWD(2023) 289 final} - {SWD(2023) 291 final}

Table of contents

1.Introduction: Political and legal context

2.Problem definition

2.2.What are the problems?

2.2.1.    When persons with disabilities travel to or visit other Member States, their access to preferential conditions including those related to services is hampered as their disability status is not recognised.    

2.2.2.    When travelling by car in the EU, persons with disabilities face difficulties in using their EU parking card.    

2.3What are the problem drivers?

2.4. How likely is the problem to persist?

3.Why should the EU act?

3.1. Legal basis

3.2. Subsidiarity: Necessity and added value of EU action

4.Objectives: What is to be achieved?

General objective of the European Disability Card initiative

5.What are the available policy options?

5.1. What is the baseline from which options are assessed?

5.2.Description of the policy options

5.2.1.    Policy area A: Options aimed at facilitating mutual recognition of disability status in the EU in relation to access to services when visiting another Member State    

5.2.2.    Policy area B: Options aimed at facilitating use and legal certainty in the use of the EU parking card for persons with disabilities    

5.2.3.    Common accompanying measure for policy options A1, A2, B2    

5.2.4.    Options discarded at an early stage    

5.2.5. Stakeholders’ views on policy options    

5.2.6. Link between policy options and objectives    

6.What are the impacts of the policy options?

6.1.Assessment of the baseline scenario

6.2.Assessment of policy options aimed at facilitating mutual recognition of disability status in the EU in relation to access to services when visiting another Member State (Area A)

6.3.Assessment of policy options aimed at facilitating use and legal certainty in the use of the EU parking card for persons with disabilities (Area B)

7.How do the options compare?

8.Preferred option

9.HOW WOULD ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?

Annex 1: Procedural information

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation (Synopsis report)

Annex 3: Who is affected and how?

Annex 4: Analytical methods

Annex 5: Competitiveness check

Annex 6: Evidence feeding the problem definition

Annex 7: Intervention logic, and Monitoring

Annex 8: Impacts of the policy options

Annex 9: Potential impacts of the policy options on travel gap of persons with disabilities and value added to the market of accessible tourism

Glossary

List of Member States

1.Introduction: Political and legal context

The Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and the  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (EUCFR) establish equality as a cornerstone of EU policies, and the fundamental right to free movement of persons is established by Article 21 of TFEU and Article 45 of EUCFR. Article 56 TFEU prohibits restrictions on freedom to provide services to nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended, as well as restrictions to the freedom to receive services from a provider established in another Member State 1 . Around 25% of the EU population have some form of disability (2021). 2  While there was significant progress over the last decades in terms of policy and legislation, persons with disabilities still face barriers to their full participation in society. In 2019 for example, over half of respondents with disabilities say they felt discriminated against 3 . To improve this situation, in 2021 the Commission adopted the  Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030 . It contributes to the implementation of several principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights , of the  United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), ratified by the EU and all its Member States, to the implementation of the 2030 United Nations Agenda  Sustainable Development Goals . 

One of the Strategy’s flagship initiatives is the creation of a European Disability Card. It is included in the Commission Work Programme 2023  and the Communication on the Conference on the Future of Europe . The European Parliament called for the Card in three resolutions. In its Resolution of 18 June 2020 on the European Disability Strategy post-2020  it asked the Commission to expand the existing pilot project of the EU Disability Card and to ensure that the EU parking card for people with disabilities is fully observed in all Member States. The EP welcomed the initiative on the European Disability Card in its Resolution of 7 October 2021 on the protection of persons with disabilities through petitions and its Resolution of 13 December 2022 towards equal rights for persons with disabilities , advocating for a legally binding and ambitious initiative, covering a range of different areas beyond culture, leisure and sport. The European Economic and Social Committee adopted the supportive Opinion SOC/765-EESC . The Member States appear generally in favour of the initiative.

The European Disability Card builds on two instruments already in place: the EU parking card and the EU Disability Card pilot. The EU parking card for people with disabilities 4  was created by  Council recommendation 98/376/EC and amended in 2008 5 . It provides for a standardised model of EU parking card with a view of ensuring its mutual recognition across the Member States, hence facilitating the free movement of persons with disabilities by car. The EU Disability Card pilot project, tested following the EU Citizenship Report 2013 6 , was carried out in eight Member States (Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Malta, Romania and Slovenia) in 2016-2018 and remained in place after the end of the project. The pilot provides a common format for a card for voluntary mutual recognition among the participating Member States of the disability status, as established in accordance with national eligibility criteria or rules, for access to benefits and services in the areas of culture, leisure, sport and, in some countries, transport 7 .

This initiative aims to make it easier for persons with disabilities to exercise their right to free movement within the EU, for the purposes of benefiting from available preferential conditions when accessing services, with or without remuneration, under equal conditions to residents with disabilities 8 . It will also contribute to the implementation of the 2030 United Nations Agenda for Sustainable Development, as Goal 8 encourages policies that promote sustainable tourism and local culture; Goal 10 aims to reduce inequalities; and Goal 11 aims at providing access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all.

The European Disability Card could facilitate the application of the EU passenger rights legislation adopted between 2004 and 2021 that is applicable to four transport modes: aviation, rail, waterborne, and bus and coach transport. 9 The initiative is also in line with the recent Directive (EU) 2022/362 10 , which enables the Member States to provide for reduced tolls or user charges as well as exemptions from the obligation to pay tolls or user charges for any vehicle used or owned by persons with disabilities as concerns roads subject to road charging.

2.Problem definition

People in the EU are increasingly mobile and all have the right to move freely in the EU and to access services in all Member States. Nevertheless, in practice persons with disabilities still face hurdles that may deter or discourage them from moving freely given physical, cultural, environmental and social barriers. 11  A recent Eurobarometer survey highlighted the difficulty of finding information on the accessibility of the destination for persons with disabilities or reduced mobility (39% find this difficult). 12  When travelling to other Member States, persons with disabilities may also face difficulties in accessing services and preferential conditions for persons with disabilities provided by some service providers. While statistics are scarce, the findings on these challenges are based on solid evidence gathered, e.g. through desk research, consultation of public authorities and experts, online surveys, interviews, and multiple reports from academia and the European Parliament (See Annex 2). 

2.1.Background (context)

Disability assessments in Member States

The concept of disability for all Member States as State Parties to the UNCRPD is based on the Article 1 of that Convention. There is no single EU definition of disability, nor any EU requirement for mutual recognition of disability status between Member States, except for a few limited cases included in Annex VII of Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems. 13  

The Member States have full competence to define the eligibility criteria and the assessment procedures to recognise disability status, in accordance with their national provisions or laws. The disability assessment has a variety of policy functions such as assessments of work capacity, and assessments of needs for support (for ‘long-term care’) or even access to transport or parking cards (see Annex 6).

Estimating the number of persons with disabilities who are travelling

The number of persons with disabilities in the EU can only be estimated in the absence of systematic monitoring or statistical data. The information about persons with disabilities with a nationally recognised disability, who are in possession of the national disability cards or certificates, are available only from 14 Member States (BE, BG, HR, CY, DE, EE, ES, HU, IT, LV, LT, MT, PL and RO). By extrapolating EU-wide, it is estimated that the overall number of persons with a recognised disability and thus potentially eligible for all or some preferential conditions would be around 30 million in EU27. This is comparable to the number of persons with severe disabilities according to EU-SILC. 14  A subset of these persons travel to other Member States and can face barriers to have their disability status recognised.

Data on persons with disabilities participating in tourism and travelling are scarce. Estimates were done based on the 2012-13 data from the Study on travel patterns of persons with disabilities and on Eurostat data on the general population participating in tourism (i.e. travelling for at least one overnight stay in a domestic, foreign country or both) for personal reasons, including also travelling in relation to education or work such as the participation on seminars, trainings or meetings. Travelling for work related purposes, for example attending a meeting, is not explicitly excluded from these estimates. 15  The year 2019 was used as a reference year in view of the disruptions to travel caused by the Covid pandemic in subsequent years. 16

The rate of participation in tourism increased between 2012 and 2019. The trend for the general population in the EU is expected to be relevant also for persons with disabilities. By applying the 2012 gap in participation in tourism between the two groups to the 2019 data on the general population, it is estimated that an upper bound range of 19.33m (i.e. 62.8%) persons with recognised disabilities aged 15-64 might have travelled abroad in 2019. 17 Not all of them may have been effectively travelling or experiencing major obstacles in obtaining preferential conditions. 

Table 1: Participation in tourism between 2012 and 2019

Note: Detailed table with per country information is provided in annex 6, Source: Study for the impact assessment based on Eurostat data and DG GROW’s report on accessible tourism in Europe

Preferential conditions

Preferential conditions provided to persons with disabilities are offered mainly for the following services: 18 i) public and private transport; ii) parking; iii) culture; iv) leisure and sport; v) tourism and vi) amusement parks. The services may be with or without remuneration, and may be provided by private operators or public authorities. The most frequent type of preferential condition is monetary support (such as price reduction or free entries and memberships) and exemptions from an obligation such as paying for particular services (e.g. certain taxes, electricity or telecommunications services, membership fees). Other types of preferential conditions provided include: access to braille and audio guides, adapted guided visits (in sign language), specialised support within the recruitment sector, receiving priority service (i.e. the ability to skip queues or be served before other customers), reserved accessible parking areas, provision of wheelchairs and/or mobility scooters to be used on the premises etc. 19

Preferential conditions are also offered when accessing services not for remuneration. Examples include: sign language interpretation when using public services; accessible seating in a public concert; loan of a wheelchair or other aid in natural parks; obtaining tourist information in accessible formats in a public information point; using a mobility scooter on roads or a wheelchair in bike lanes without a fine; assistance on the beach to enter the water, loan of a floating wheelchair; designated seats in parks and other public areas, etc.

Reasons why service providers decide to offer preferential conditions to persons with disabilities include: (i) ensuring that all their (potential) customers have access to their services; (ii) their customers expressing a preference for greater accessibility of services; (iii) following a marketing strategy to improve the visibility/reputation of their services; (iv) attracting a higher volume of customers; or (v) receiving financial support from public authorities for such service provision. 20  

2.2.What are the problems?

The ‘problem tree’ below summarises the main problem at stake and the related drivers which this initiative tackles, with its underlying consequences for different stakeholders.

While, as described below, the initiative focuses on persons with disabilities travelling across Member States, it addresses two very specific problems, namely the difficulties encountered by persons with disabilities to use their parking cards and difficulties to get access to preferential conditions offered by service providers in other Member States due to the limited recognition of their respective parking and disability cards. It is acknowledged that persons with disabilities face also other barriers such as the limited, or even absence of, accessibility of the built environment and some services or the discriminatory treatment experienced when compared to persons without disabilities. However, it is not the intention of this initiative to tackle those problems, which are being addressed through other EU level initiatives, including specific accessibility legislation and standards and a specific proposal for equal treatment that is being discussed in the Council since 2008. Hence the specific focus of this initiative.

Figure 1: Intervention logic

2.2.1.When persons with disabilities travel to or visit other Member States, their access to preferential conditions including those related to services is hampered as their disability status is not recognised.

The disability status is determined by the assessment of disability of a person in a Member States and then proved by national disability cards and/or certificates, which are also necessary to access preferential conditions. 21  However, these national disability cards and/or certificates are often not recognised when persons with disabilities travel to or visit other Member States and would like to access preferential conditions. This difficulty was confirmed by many respondents to consultations done for this impact assessment (NCAs, CSOs, persons with disabilities). Persons with disabilities indicated that they face challenges in proving their disability status and using their national disability cards for accessing benefits, getting assistance or accessing preferential conditions offered by services in the host Member State 22 . The number of persons with disabilities travelling and experiencing the problems may be small when compared to the total population travelling, yet for them these problems are very significant as shown in the answers to the public consultation by persons with disabilities (see Annex 2). This initiative would help them to access preferential conditions on equal basis with the residents with disabilities of the visited country and to improve the predictability and legal certainty of that access.

The evidence collected indicates that more preferential conditions are available to residents with disabilities in comparison to non-residents with disabilities recognised in another Member State. For example, all Member States offer preferential conditions for public transport to residents with disabilities, while 14 of them were found to also extend such conditions to non-residents 23 . 

The consequences faced by persons with disabilities and their families are diverse. They may be discouraged from travelling to other Member States. This was highlighted by 980 respondents to the public consultation (individuals, civil society, public authorities, different organisations). 24  Persons with disabilities also face an additional burden as they are often requested to prove their disability status, e.g. by showing medical documentation as their national card is not recognised, in order to receive disability-related preferential conditions for using certain services abroad. This consequence was also identified by the EP study. 25  

High travelling expenses, due to their additional specific needs, are a key factor, which may discourage many persons with disabilities from travelling, 26  in comparison to persons without disabilities. 27 Such additional costs can be expenses to access and use services (e.g. adapted hotel rooms for persons using wheelchairs or requiring personal assistants) or caregivers’ travel. Therefore, they highly value preferential conditions offered by the place of destination such as monetary support (price reduction or free access, including for personal assistants), exemptions (from paying for particular services), and other types of support (access to braille, audio guides, etc.). 28  

Given the precarious financial situation of persons with disabilities, it can be expected that financial concerns are important for their travel decisions. 29  In 2021, the at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate for persons without disabilities was 18.8% compared to 29.7% for those with disabilities, and 36.2% for persons with severe disabilities, the latter being considered a reliable proxy for the share of the population with recognised disabilities. 30  

Consequences for public authorities are mostly additional information requests which constitute an additional administrative burden. Examples of requests for clarification were extracted from SOLVIT and are listed in Annex 6. These requests came from citizens of AT, SK, HU, DE, and ES. Citizens were asking if their national disability cards would be accepted in another Member State, to what preferential conditions they could have access, etc. 31  Another consequence is legal uncertainty as public authorities do not have means to confirm validity of cards in case of doubts about validity of a foreign card. There are as well economic impacts on the tourism sector with missed opportunities for travel by persons with disabilities as there will be less income for public authorities providing services such as is the case for transport. 

Consequences for service providers are difficulties in recognising the diverse national disability cards and certificates to provide preferential conditions. Consulted service providers (12 out of 18) agreed that the European Disability Card would simplify the process of recognising the disability status of customers with a disability from other EU Member States. 32 There are also possible negative financial impacts because fewer persons with disabilities and their families are using their services.

2.2.2.When travelling by car in the EU, persons with disabilities face difficulties in using their EU parking card. 

For many persons with disabilities, private car transport is the best or only possibility of getting around independently. The ability to park as close to their destination as possible and the availability of reserved parking facilities is key in supporting their autonomy and free movement. The EU parking card for persons with disabilities was created in 1998 33 and is one of the most visible and important achievements of EU disability policy. It is widely used by all the Member States. It contributed to the (implicit) mutual recognition of the disability status and facilitated the free movement of persons with disabilities in the EU. This was confirmed by a majority of respondents to the survey on the EU Parking Card (16/25 NCAs, 6/10 EU-level CSOs and 13/23 national CSOs). 75.4% (or 908) of respondents to the public consultation (on line standard questionnaire) agreed that the EU parking card facilitates the mobility of persons with disabilities. 34  The card is also known and used as confirmed by the majority of respondents to the public consultation (1877 35 ).  36

Despite its positive role, users are facing difficulties in the use of the EU parking card. From 2018 to 2022, around 260 enquiries about the EU parking card were submitted on the SOLVIT platform. Such complaints mainly regarded uncertainties as to the rights granted by the card to persons with disabilities when travelling to other Member States (around 30% of cases), mutual recognition of national parking cards, issued based on the EU model (around 25% of cases), as well as the justification for fines received even when showing the EU parking card (around 12% of cases). 37

Problems in using the EU parking card and with its limited recognition were confirmed by the public consultation, specifically by 586 respondents with disabilities. 38  The Commission took stock of the state of play in 2019 and collected information from Member States. 39

As a consequence, persons with disabilities have practical difficulties in exercising their freedom of movement. The use of the card is made more difficult due to the uncertainty about whether and how they can use it. 40  The non-recognition of the EU parking card results in practical disadvantages, such as not being able to park near the entrance of premises and may bring limitations in use of services and thus unequal treatment when accessing such services. Moreover, they can bear financial impacts. For example, 12% of SOLVIT complaints on this topic were about fines. Finally, due to the risk of non-recognition of the card in another Member State, persons with disabilities feel discouraged from travelling by car across the EU. 41

National differences in the design and implementation of the EU parking card contribute to increasing overall enforcement costs for public authorities. Specifically, as reported by the representative of an EU-level parking association interviewed, the increasing divergences in the design of the EU parking card across the Member States have highlighted the need to provide parking controllers with ad-hoc training on the different types of cards in place. 42  There are also economic impacts on the tourism sector with missed opportunities for travel by persons with disabilities.

Consequences for service providers are additional costs and the burden of lengthy document checks, and uncertainty how to handle requests or claims from persons with disabilities.

2.3What are the problem drivers?

2.3.1.    Drivers for problem area A: There is limited acceptance across the EU of national disability cards and certificates of non-residents with disabilities issued by other Member States

Preferential conditions provided for persons with disabilities and their personal assistants are reasons for limited acceptance of national disability cards and certificates of persons with disabilities travelling or visiting other Member States. 43  

A.1    Insufficient awareness and knowledge of different national disability cards and certificates 

Very different formats of national disability cards and certificates make it difficult for service providers to verify and recognise them. 44  Some national service providers consulted complained that they are not familiar with all disability cards or certificates and thus often do not accept them, especially when information is provided in foreign languages. 45  

The TFEU and the Directive on services in the internal market (2006/123/EC) prohibit discrimination on the basis of nationality. However, service providers are not aware and explicitly obliged to recognise the disability status certified in a different country of origin. This may lead to discrimination on the basis of nationality in some cases, or at least to uncertainty as to whether service providers will recognise the disability status.

A.2    No obligation to accept and limited voluntary acceptance of national disability cards and certificates

There is limited willingness of national authorities and/or service providers to recognise a disability card / certificate issued by another Member State, which may apply, in their view, less strict disability assessment criteria and procedures than in their own Member State. 46

Differences exist also in the amount and types of preferential conditions available to persons with disabilities across the Member States. They are mainly decided and offered on a voluntary basis by individual service providers. Only a few Member States have introduced a legislative framework establishing the type of benefits offered by services, as defined in the internal market acquis (and mainly provided for remuneration). The mandatory preferential conditions for resident persons with disabilities are found in only a few services, with most countries introducing them in public transport (23) and in parking (18). Differences also concern preferential conditions made available to personal assistants of persons with disabilities. A detailed mapping is presented in Annex 6.

2.3.2.    Driver B: National divergences in the implementation of the EU parking cards for persons with disabilities

Council Recommendation 98/376/EC 47  (amended by Council Recommendation 2008/205/EC 48 ) introduced the EU parking card model for people with disabilities. Despite being one of the most important achievements of the EU disability policy, the Recommendation did not fully succeed to achieve a truly EU-wide model card recognised among all Member States, especially due to its voluntary nature. Indeed, its Annex I provided only for minimum standards in terms of the design and layout of the EU parking card. It leaves it to Member States to adapt the card’s layout and functional features to their own priorities and needs. It does not contain any provisions on coordination and monitoring by Member States. National authorities are free to establish the eligibility criteria for obtaining the card, the management system in place and the issuing authority, enforcement, any further elements to be added in the card layout. The model has not been updated since 1998 to reflect technological progress, especially to take into account the risk of fraud and forgery of the card, and did not include any security features. In order to better prevent fraud and forgeries, 12 Member States 49  have added their own security features (such as QR codes, holograms, barcodes). This increases differences in the card design. In response to the public consultation 45.6% (or 549 replies), 38.4% (or 462), 35.9% (or 432) claimed that differences in terms of design, the possible fraudulent use of the card and possible forgeries hinder the implementation of the EU parking card. 50  

The visual format contains the international disability symbol representing a wheelchair, which is easy to recognise, but the text displayed on the EU parking card is usually printed in the national language of the Member State, where the card is issued. This further adds to the difficulties for local authorities or service providers of other Member States to understand the text written on the card and thus its purpose. 51  A further element of complexity is the coexistence of older and newer models of cards. Since 2017, in France the EU parking card is progressively being replaced by a new non-EU model parking card, i.e. the CMI (‘Carte mobilité inclusion’), yet both of these quite different models are currently valid and in use. This has resulted in increasing national differences in: (i) the card’s layout, (ii) the parking rights granted to cardholders, and (iii) the control and enforcement of the parking card. Such differences sometimes even occur within a single Member State, when the card is issued at the regional or local level. 52

It has been found that there is a lack of information on the conditions granted to cardholders across municipalities and across the Member States. This again creates uncertainty for cardholders and discourages them from travelling. Indeed, they often do not know what concessions are granted, which may result in fines. Member States also have different approaches to control the validity and the proper use of the EU parking card. In addition, parking and traffic control methods are increasingly digitised and focused on automated checks on the car plate, rather than on manual checks on the paper-based EU parking card. In cities where automatic checks are performed, parking cardholders have to register their parking card to their car plate on a local platform (e.g. in Brussels or Milan). This means that it is necessary to register in a different local platform when visiting different cities, creating significant uncertainty for cardholders on the rules. They are often required to communicate with local authorities of the city they are going to visit to inform them that they hold the EU parking card and to ask how to use it, in order to avoid possible fines. 53  

2.4. How likely is the problem to persist?

In case of no action, persons with disabilities are likely to continue facing uncertainty about access to preferential conditions when travelling abroad within the EU. When they travel to other Member States, the recognition of their national disability cards and certificates will remain voluntary and limited when it comes to preferential conditions when accessing services. For the positive effects of the pilot EU Disability Card to be extended, all Member States should join the initiative.

Free movement and access to services are also affected by matters of accessibility. There are comprehensive rules on accessibility of trains and railway stations in Commission Regulation 1300/2014. Some (but not all) maritime ships have to be accessible according to Directive 2009/45/EC. Certain (but not all) buses must also be accessible according to Regulation 661/2009. There are, however, no EU level accessibility rules on air transport. The incomplete coverage of the legislative framework is among the reasons why some persons with disabilities have to rely on private cars, rather than public transport. This underlines the importance of the EU parking card.

The positive role of the parking card in promoting the free movement and parking rights of persons with disabilities will continue. However, the problems with its recognition among Member States are expected to increase due to technical and digital developments which increase the divergence of the models. The number of Member States using automatic number-plate recognition automatic cameras is likely to further increase. The paper-based format of the EU parking card is not adequate for such innovations. More Member States would likely add security features to prevent fraud.

The problem is also expected to further grow in magnitude given the ageing of the EU population 54 and higher prevalence of disability in the age category above 65 years. 55  Older people with disabilities (usually aged 65+) can benefit across the EU from preferential conditions (discounts or reduced fees) granted based on age without needing any EU disability card. However, they usually cannot benefit in other Member States from preferential conditions for persons with disabilities, such as personalised services and assistance, priority service, etc. 

Travelling patterns of the general population in the future can be expected to continue a linear increase, as was the trend until 2019 before the Covid pandemic. 56  To estimate future trends in participation in tourism of persons with disabilities and how the gap between persons with disabilities and the general population will develop, data on trends in participation in tourism of the general population aged 15 to 64, and survey data on persons with disabilities in the same age group were combined to simulate future scenarios. The basic scenario assumes that the gap remains constant. The increasing gap scenario is the most pessimistic and assumes that the participation in tourism of persons with disabilities does not grow in parallel with that of the general population. Two more optimistic scenarios assume that the travel gap would slightly decrease. In the minimum improvement scenario, the share of persons aged 15-64 travelling by 2030 is estimated at 70% for persons with disabilities and 75% for the general population. In the most optimistic scenario, the share for both groups would be 75 % but that is considered to require a significant improvement in accessibility of destinations for persons with disabilities. 57

These last two scenarios are encouraging as a stronger reduction of the travel gap would not happen without major policy interventions aimed at improving physical and virtual accessibility and the financial affordability for persons with disabilities. The recognition of the disability cards of people travelling for the purposes of accessing services under the same preferential conditions as persons with disabilities residing in the country they are visiting is the third element and the aim of this initiative. Indeed, as uncertainty continues as concerns recognition of the disability and parking cards to access preferential conditions, the most likely scenario would be that the estimated gap between the travel participation of persons with disabilities and the general population remains unchanged. The scenarios are further analysed in section 6 on impact of the options.

Figure 2: Scenarios of future changes in participation in tourism for general population and persons with disabilities (age group 15-64) 58

Source: Study supporting the impact assessment

This assumption is also supported by stakeholders’ feedback, in particular from persons with disabilities replying to the public consultation. Respondents replied positively 59  

·On the importance of the EU action to facilitate mutual recognition of disability in the EU: 936 EU citizens, 62 NGOs, 23 public authorities, 16 companies/businesses/business associations, 21 academia/research institutions, 20 non-EU citizens and 4 trade unions, and 695 persons with disabilities across all categories.

·On the need to facilitate access to those services offering preferential conditions to persons with disabilities: 925 EU citizens, 61 NGOs, 20 public authorities, 14 companies/business associations, 20 academia/research institutions, 20 non-EU citizens and 4 trade unions, and 690 persons with disabilities across all categories.

·And on the need to improve the implementation of the EU Parking card for persons with disabilities: 836 EU citizens, 56 NGOs, 24 public authorities, 15 companies/businesses/business associations, 19 academia/research institutions, 18 non-EU citizens and 4 trade unions, and 631 persons with disabilities across all categories.

3.Why should the EU act?

3.1.Legal basis

This legislative initiative falls under EU shared competence. It will fully respect the subsidiarity principle and national powers as it will not affect the mechanisms in place at national level, granting the disability status based on national assessments (including issuance of national cards/certificates), nor lead to any harmonisation of disability assessment status or disability definition at EU level.

The Treaties provide for a multiple legal base to meet the objectives of the initiative:

-The starting point of the present initiative is to facilitate the free movement of persons with disabilities as Union citizens. Its purpose is to ensure that when exercising their right of free movement, this group of EU citizens is not discriminated on the ground of nationality or face disadvantages because they do not hold a disability card or certificate issued by the host Member State (in comparison with persons with a disability recognised in that country). A European Disability card, and / or the European Parking Card for persons with disabilities recognised in all Member States, will provide legal certainty with respect to the access to preferential condition offered by services in other Member States.

-The EDC will allow cardholders when travelling to benefit from preferential conditions when accessing services, whether with or without remuneration, on an equal basis with persons with a disability in the visited Member State. Articles 53/62 TFEU concern services provided in the internal market.

-With respect to special conditions and preferential treatment to access services in the field of transport, including parking facilities, Article 91 TFEU applies. In addition, this Article is also relevant since it allowed for the adoption of the 1998 Council Recommendation creating the existing EU parking card voluntary scheme, which will be replaced by the current initiative. 60

-If and to the extent that the initiative would cover services falling outside the scope of the above-mentioned legal bases, Article 21 TFEU, establishing the right to free movement of persons, could be added to cover residual services. Article 21 TFEU states that “[e]very citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaties and by the measures adopted to give them effect”. 61

3.2.Subsidiarity: Necessity and added value of EU action

This proposal fully respects the principle of subsidiarity. The different, interlinked objectives of this proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States independently but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects of the action, be better achieved at EU level. Action at EU level is thus necessary.The problem identified has a cross border dimension that cannot be solved by the Member States on their own. Since the introduction of the EU parking card in 1998, the Member States have not undertaken initiatives to improve the convergence of their models. While the EU Disability Card pilot project worked among the 8 participating Member States, it lacked the EU-wide dimension, creating significant uncertainty and unequal treatment of persons with disabilities travelling and visiting different Member States. As the pilot project card and its model are voluntary, the same problems of divergence as with the parking card would likely develop over time.

The necessity of EU action is directly linked to the cross-border nature of travel and related challenges faced by persons with disabilities travelling in the EU, thus the need to ensure an adequate coordinated approach among Member States in facilitating access to preferential conditions offered by services on an equal basis to residents in their country. Lack of action at EU level would likely result in Member States adopting different systems, resulting in continued difficulties with the recognition of disability cards and certificates, as well as of the EU parking card, across borders. Should the EU not intervene, current differences in national disability cards and certificates would likely also increase, and the different treatment of persons with disabilities across the Member States would remain or increase further, with adverse effects on the exercise of their free movement rights and their access to special conditions or preferential treatment in relation to services.

EU action adds value by introducing a mutually recognised instrument (the European Disability Card), facilitating the free of movement for persons with disabilities in the EU and their equal treatment when accessing services compared to residents with disabilities across Member States. The evaluation study on the pilot EU Disability Card showed that in the eight Member States participating in the project, the EU action has enabled mutual recognition of disability status for the purposes of accessing services across Member States that would not have been achieved by Member States acting alone. 62 In this light, the intervention of the European Commission contributed to the implementation of the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020. 63  Experiences from the pilot project and the Council recommendation show that an EU legal instrument, in this case a Directive, is necessary to ensure full implementation of the initiative, adopting the common EU-model and facilitating the access of persons with disabilities to preferential conditions. 

4.Objectives: What is to be achieved?

General objective of the European Disability Card initiative

To facilitate free movement and equal access to services for persons with disabilities in the EU.

The European Disability Card initiative intends to facilitate free movement and equal access to services of persons with disabilities in the EU. It will facilitate the recognition of the disability status for the purposes of accessing services across Member States. When accessing services covered by its scope, European Disability Card holders would benefit from the same preferential conditions provided to persons with disabilities in the host Member State. The aim is to remove difference in treatment between residents and visitors with disabilities. This would in turn lead to greater equality and legal certainty. It should be acknowledged that, due to differences in national disability assessments and consequently in the levels of disability recognised in different Member States, the initiative cannot address the issues like the access to some specific benefits that are reserved for persons with specific levels of disability in individual Member States which are provided in accordance with their national/regional/local rules, procedures and pracitces. The scope of this initiative is those persons with disabilities who have a recognised disability status in their own Member State and are holders of the European Disability Card and are entitled to recognition and rights abroad. The EU does not have competence as regards harmonising the disability assessment, therefore options in this area are not considered. Furthermore, as mentioned before, other specific EU initiatives address the issue of accessibility.

In addition, the initiative intends to improve the functioning of the EU parking card for people with disabilities, improving its mutual recognition, preventing forgery and fraud.

The initiative would decrease the uncertainties faced by persons with disabilities as to the recognition of their disability cards or certificates, and/or EU parking cards and related access to preferential conditions. These uncertainties and difficulties caused by non-recognition of disability status and/or EU parking cards are having negative impacts on people’s will to travel and visit other countries. The final goal of the initiative is therefore, increased mobility of persons with disabilities.

Several scenarios of increasing participation in tourism are possible as described in section 2.4. It must be clear that the initiative is not intended to solve all the problems that persons with disabilities face when travelling but instead is focused on promoting non discriminatory treatment between persons with disabilities visiting a country and residents with disabilities when accessing preferential conditions offered by service providers. The access to preferential conditions will compensate to some extent the financial situation of persons with disabilities travelling. However, it is also not in the scope of the EDC to address financial affordability of travel. Moreover, as already mentioned, the initiative does not address the accessibility of built or virtual environments, which is addressed by other EU legislation (i.e. the European Accessibility Act namely Directive 2019/882 and related standards) and financial support via the EU funds (i.e. shared management funds Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 requires accessibility). These factors are outside the scope of the initiative. Therefore, the initiative is not aiming to fully close the disability travel gap. Estimated modest contributions of individual options to decreasing the travel gap and the value added to the market for accessible tourism are described further in section 6.

The European Disability Card will not replace national disability cards. Its scope will not cover benefits in the area of social security / social protection (i.e. (non-)contributory cash benefits or benefits in kind), access to which is governed by national rules and, in a cross-border context, by Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 64 and No 987/2009 65 on the coordination of social security systems.

Specific objectives

1.To facilitate mutual recognition of disability status when persons with disabilities travel to or visit other Member States.

2.To facilitate use and legal certainty in the use of the EU parking card for persons with disabilities.

Both objectives intend to tackle the problem of non-recognition of national disability cards or certificates and difficulties in the use of the EU parking card. The objective is it to provide for the tools/instrument that would allow persons with disabilities to benefit from the same preferential conditions provided to them in the host Member State and under the same conditions (for example in some cases being a resident is a condition to get access to benefits and this condition will remain as it applies to persons with disabilities also in the host Member State). The instrument must be secure and in line with current digitalisation developments.

The specific objectives are consistent with the EU Treaties and other EU policies. They will contribute to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights and the Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030.

5.What are the available policy options?

In order to address the challenges identified in the problem assessment in Chapter 2, different options have been considered.

·The baseline scenario

·Policy area A: options aimed at facilitating mutual recognition of disability status in the EU in relation to access to services when visiting another Member State

·Policy area B: options aimed at facilitating mutual recognition of EU parking cards for persons with disabilities, issued based on the EU model

·Discarded options

5.1.What is the baseline from which options are assessed?

The baseline scenario means no major policy action and leaving in place two current Cards: the EU parking card for people with disabilities based on the 1998 Council recommendation and the EU Disability Card adopted in eight Member States on a voluntary basis. The EU Disability Card system would remain, with voluntary inclusion of the areas of culture, leisure, sports and transport, and service providers are expected to continue to offer preferential conditions for persons with disabilities.

Regarding the use of the EU parking card, the differences in its layout, design and management modes across the Member States will continue to impair its mutual recognition. Over time these differences would further increase due to technical and digital developments that are impacting on parking control, and prevention of fraud and forgery (inclusion of additional security features).

5.2.Description of the policy options

5.2.1.Policy area A: Options aimed at facilitating mutual recognition of disability status in the EU in relation to access to services when visiting another Member State

The proposed options consider introducing a model European Disability Card (EDC), building on the pilot. It also builds on other comparable instruments providing for an EU model format already in place: amongst others, the European Health Insurance Card, the Community model for national driving licences 66   and the European Student Card . Uniformisation or standardisation of security standards, formats and specifications have been pursued in the area of travel and residence documents (e.g. for identity cards and passports issued to EU citizens or residence cards, residence permits and visas issued to third-country nationals). 67  

The European Disability Card will not replace national disability cards or certificates, Member States remain free to continue issuing national cards as well should they choose to do so.

·Mandatory EDC model in all Member States for travelling and/or visiting purposes – selected sectors (Policy option A1)

The initiative would propose minimum common rules for the model EDC and conditions for its issuing/applications:

Format: The EDC shall have an EU common model both in digital and physical format. It should include some minimum security features such as: i) a QR code on the front and back of the card, which certifies the holder’s disability assessment; (ii) a hologram associated to a unique identified number to prevent card duplication; (iii) a relief structure in the form of scannable embossed alpha numerical information such as Braille printing.

Eligibility: Persons eligible to receive the EDC shall include EU citizens with recognised disability status granted by the Member States of residence and based on this country’s own assessment criteria and procedures, including validity/expiration. The EDC would not replace the national disability cards and certificates.

Scope: The EDC shall apply to the culture, leisure, sport and transport 68 sectors following the positive results of the pilot project and recommendations to include all the sectors to ensure bigger impact as transport was included only in two pilot countries. Moreover, the EDC shall also provide that preferential conditions offered to personal assistants 69 of residents with disabilities are, in accordance with national rules and practices, extended to personal assistants and/or accompanying persons of EDC holders when travelling and/or visiting across EU.

·Mandatory EDC model in all Member States for travelling and/or visiting purposes – all service sectors (Policy option A2)

The initiative would propose minimum common rules for the model EDC and conditions for its issuing/applications. It would have the same provisions on format and eligibility as policy option A1, with the main difference in the scope of the initiative.

Scope: The EDC shall apply to all services with or without remuneration, provided by private operators or public authorities, including passenger transport services, including the sectors of Policy Option A1. Hence all preferential conditions that are currently offered by service providers in a Member State to residents with disabilities will be covered. Moreover, the EDC shall provide that also preferential conditions offered to personal assistants of residents with disabilities are, in accordance with national rules and practices, extended to personal assistants and/or accompanying persons of EDC holders when travelling and/or visiting across EU.

·Accompanying measures applicable to policy options A1 and A2

The Member States shall establish a national accessible website 70 providing as a minimum information on: (i) who is eligible for the EDC; (ii) how to obtain the EDC; (iii) preferential conditions available (those set by legislation) to persons with disabilities in the Member States. The national website should also include a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section, as well as a section where cardholders can submit questions or complaints on the use of the EDC. The national websites shall be accessible for persons with disabilities following EU level accessibility standards and contain easy-to-read information. Hyperlinks to the national websites shall be included in the Your Europe Portal. The national websites shall be available as a minimum in the national language(s) of the concerned Member State and in English, and shall be readable by translation tools.

The Your Europe Portal 71  will include a section dedicated to the EDC, including information on: (i) the description of the EDC initiative and the related aims, features and benefits; (ii) the hyperlinks to the EDC national websites in all Member States.

An EU-wide awareness-raising campaign will inform all stakeholders (persons with disabilities and their personal assistants, accompanying persons (such as family and friends), service providers, national authorities, general public, etc.) about the EDC using advertisements and also social media.

5.2.2.Policy area B: Options aimed at facilitating use and legal certainty in the use of the EU parking card for persons with disabilities

·Option B1: Enhanced/reinforced voluntary EU parking card

The EU parking card would remain voluntary. To improve its effectiveness, Annex I to the Recommendation would be amended so that the EU model parking card is complemented with security features to prevent its fraud and forgery (e.g. QR code, hologram, barcode) and avoid paper versions. The Commission will support coordination between Member States by issuing EU common guidelines concerning the establishment of national databases of cardholders that are accessible to responsible authorities in charge of controlling the use of the parking card at the national level. These guidelines would focus on publicly available information accessible for persons with disabilities (e.g. on an accessible website at national or local level) on: (i) where to get and use the EU parking card; (ii) how the EU parking card works; (iii) scope of rights associated.

·Option B2: Mandatory EU parking card model 

The EU parking card would become mandatory. A legislative act will be introduced repealing the current Council recommendation. As in Option B1, the model shall include minimum common rules on specific security features to prevent its fraud and forgery, digital features such as QR code, hologram, barcode, etc. The model introduced with the legislative act will replace existing cards, issued on the basis of the Recommendation. The Member States shall retain the power to establish the eligibility criteria to receive the card as well as to determine the parking rights provided for the card at the national level. Thus the principle of subsidiarity will be respected.

Member States shall establish national databases including, as a minimum, information on the identity of cardholders and whether the card is currently valid. National databases shall be accessible to enforcement authorities in charge of controlling the use of the card at the national level. Member States shall ensure that up to date information is available and easily accessible for persons with disabilities (e.g. on a website at national or local level) on: (i) where to get and use the EU parking card; (ii) how the EU parking card works; (iii) scope of rights associated with the EU parking card.

·Accompanying measure for policy options B1 and B2

The EU portal Your Europe that provides information on how to get and use the current parking cards that follow the EU parking card model recommendation would provide links to the national or local websites which provide information on the rights associated with the parking cards.

5.2.3.Common accompanying measure for policy options A1, A2, B2

The Commission will create a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. 72 The committee will assist the Commission. It will be chaired by a representative of the Commission and composed of representatives of the Member States.

5.2.4.Options discarded at an early stage

The design of options and the decision to discard certain options is strongly based on experience of the EDC pilot project, and on the experience of 98/376/EC Council Recommendation of 4 June 1998 on a parking card for people with disabilities. The political feasibility of options and their relevance also played an important role as well as the views of stakeholders.

The EDC pilot tested a purely voluntary approach, both as concerns the card design and the decision of service providers to participate. The Commission widely promoted the pilot, both to Member States and to stakeholders. The pilot was a success within the constraints of its design, which brought several limitations, such as only partial coverage of certain services within the selected sectors and of service providers. This required a central database to be created, updated and communicated to people with disabilities, who still lacked certainty as to the recognition of their status, as it was difficult to keep the database updated and the decision on the recognition of the disability Card remained voluntary. The options retained for detailed analysis in the IA report overcome these constraints, by ensuring predictability for persons with disabilities, legal certainty for all parties, and equality of treatment between residents and non-residents with disabilities.

Experience of the pilot underpins the decision to discard, for example, the introduction of the EDC on a voluntary basis, as it would bring additional deviations in the standard (physical and/or digital) format of the Card over time (as happened with the Parking card) and associated difficulties for its recognition and use. If only few Member States adopt the card voluntarily, they can suffer from first mover disadvantage. They bear the costs of issuing the card, while it can be used only in a limited way. The full potential benefits for persons with disabilities can only be achieved if all Member States participate at the same time. The value added of a mandatory approach is that all Member States simultaneously issue and accept the EDC from other Member States.

Experience of the pilot also highlighted the limits of service providers voluntarily offering their preferential conditions to persons with disabilities from other Member States, which resulted in a limited number of participating services, high uncertainty for persons with disabilities, and relatively high administrative efforts for Member States to keep information updated.

Options which did not address the core issue of equal treatment of persons with disabilities, regardless of where their disability is assessed, were not pursued (relevance of the options). While the decision by a service provider to grant preferential conditions to persons with disabilities remains voluntary (unless set by national law), once granted, the same preferential conditions should be available for all EDC holders.

Options that would fail to gather the necessary political support for legislative adoption were discarded. While the EP resolution calls for a single EU disability definition, this would fall outside EU competence. When measured against proportionality, any attempt to introduce such a definition would need to go beyond only travel purposes, to include for example social security, a field in which it proves difficult to achieve EU level harmonisation.

All options involving an obviously too heavy administrative burden were not pursued. For example, the pilot approach of the EDC involved “selected services,” negotiated with each provider and updated in databases accessible to visitors from other Member States.

The use of an EU-wide database of documents, presenting the design and security features of various national cards, was discarded, given the very high number of service providers across the EU whose staff would need to be trained in its use to understand cards or paper certificates from across the EU (moreover, not all Member States issue cards or certificates). Service providers would still have the discretion to extend or not preferential conditions to non-residents, meaning continued practical and legal uncertainty for persons with disabilities on recognition of their cards / certificates.

A. Discarded options related to Policy area A (Policy options aimed at facilitating mutual recognition of disability status in the EU)

To introduce an EDC that applies to a list of selected internal market services 73 identified as priority services

The effectiveness of this option would largely depend on the establishment of a monitoring system to track services participating in the initiative as well as to inform persons with disabilities about participating services and the preferential conditions. It would require the creation and updating of a website with all detailed information. However, such a system is not expected to be cost-effective as it would entail a disproportionate burden resulting from the regular monitoring of concerned services and the establishment of a comprehensive database, including information on preferential conditions available to persons with disabilities.

To establish a Recommendation to introduce the EDC on a voluntary basis in all Member States (i.e. improving the baseline scenario)

The success of this option would largely depend on the willingness of individual Member State to implement it. Only if all Member States adopt the voluntary EDC would its mutual recognition while travelling or visiting be ensured. However, based on the experience of the pilot EDC, only a few Member States voluntarily decided to adopt the EDC. Even with additional EU coordination and supporting mechanisms, it is unlikely that more Member States would adopt it.

To create an EU-wide database outlining the design and security features of the various national cards

Such a database was established for passports 74 . The database would improve knowledge of different formats of the national disability cards and certificates and the EU parking cards issued by different countries. However, it would not solve the key problem, which is mutual recognition and willingness to offer the same benefits and preferential conditions available to residents of a Member State to residents of other Member States. To ensure mutual recognition of the disability status and access to preferential conditions, including the parking rights, the legislative instrument is deemed to be necessary also based on experience with the pilot project and the implementation of the Recommendation. In addition, managing the database would bring administrative burden.

To replace national disability cards by the EDC

The option to replace national disability cards by the EDC was discarded. Persons with disabilities who are holders of national cards and have no intention to travel abroad should be able to continue to use their cards. Introducing the obligation to replace all national cards would introduce an unnecessarily large administrative burden. It is not fit for purpose, as the objective of this initiative focuses on persons with disabilities who are travelling to and/or visiting other Member States. At the same time, Member States would be free to decide whether to progressively replace national cards with the EDC.

B. Discarded option related to Policy Area B (Policy options aimed at facilitating use and legal certainty in the use of the EU parking card for persons with disabilities)

To introduce minimum common requirements towards harmonising national rules regarding the rights and benefits granted to card holders

Discarded due to lack of proportionality and legal base for harmonisation, as this option goes beyond what is necessary to achieve SO1 (i.e. ensuring mutual recognition of disability cards when persons with disabilities travel in the EU). This option may also raise concerns in terms of political feasibility and implementation since the rights and benefits granted by the parking card for persons with disabilities are set in Member States at national, regional or local level.

C. Common discarded options for the Policy area A and B

To establish a system of mutual recognition of disability status either by a common definition of disability and or common assessment criteria and procedures

Discarded due to lack of proportionality and legal competence to harmonise, as this option goes beyond what is necessary to achieve SO1. Moreover, since the assessment of disability status is undertaken at the national, regional or even local level according to assessment criteria and related procedures enshrined in national legislation, this option could also raise concerns in terms of political feasibility and impact on social security benefits and taxation.

To merge the EU parking card with the new EDC

Discarded due to a lack of practical and technical feasibility. Indeed, the two cards have different eligibility criteria and use, hence they should be kept as two distinct cards. Also, stakeholders consulted pointed out that merging the two cards would limit the possibility of persons with disabilities to use both cards simultaneously. The Member States have also underlined that the eligibility for the two cards differs at national level

5.2.5. Stakeholders’ views on policy options 

The European Parliament in its 2022 Resolution strongly believes that the European Disability Card should be based on a binding EU legislative act that should cover a range of different areas beyond culture, leisure and sport. It especially stresses that the Card should also, by default, be usable for services provided at national, regional and local level, such as transport, have a dedicated EU website and accessible online database available in all EU languages, including specific communication formats, like easy-to-read language, Braille and sign language. It underlines that persons with disabilities and their representative organisations have to be closely involved in the implementation of and communication on the Card.

The call for evidence consultation showed that out of the 272 respondents the following were in favour of an EDC that (i) is mutually recognised across the EU (97 EU Citizens, 20 CSOs, 1 SME, 1 Other) – options A1 and A2; and (ii) provides for access to same preferential conditions already granted by Member States to residents with disabilities, regardless of the areas or services (21 EU Citizens, 20 CSOs, 7 Other) – option A2. Some targeted interviews (expert, 1 CSO, 1 EU body) showed less support for applying the card to all services (option A2).

In the public consultation most respondents expressed the view that the EDC should be binding for all Member States, without the possibility of opting out: 867 of 999 EU citizens, 56 of 66 NGOs, 23 of 29 public authorities, 18 of 25 companies/business associations, 20 of 23 academia/research institutions, 17 non-EU citizens, 3 consumer organisations, and 661 of 757 Persons with disabilities across all categories (options A1 and A2). More than 80% of the respondents agreed that EU action is needed to improve the implementation of the EU Parking card for persons with disabilities (options B1 and B2). 75  

As concerns Member States’ views, all 7 Member States that sent position papers or the 16 Member States that spoke in the Social Protection Committee meeting of 3 April 2023 agreed on the existence of the problem, the need for EU action and the binding character of the initiative as the appropriate means to tackle it. There is also consensus among users and Member States that the EDC and the EU Parking Card should be kept as separate cards and that both physical and digital cards should be available to card holders. No other Member States expressed a different view on those matters.

On 18 October 2022, the Commission adopted its 2023 Work programme and announced in its Annex the adoption of the European Disability Card for 2023 as a legislative initiative with its related impact assessment.

In the following discussions with Member States, the legislative nature of the initiative was stressed by the Commisison in its presentations while seeking feedback from stakeholders. The reflection on the initiative has been included in each 2022 and 2023 meeting of the Disability Platform, composed of representatives of Member States (UNCRPD focal points from all Member States) and civil society, and has been further developed through discussion in a dedicated Sub-group of the Platform. In addition, the Commission discussed the initiative with Member States in the Social Protection Committee meeting of 3 April 2023 and further during the meeting on the European Disability Card organised by Finland on 17 May 2023 to support the Commission's preparations. The meeting conclusions made by Finland reflected well the positive reception of the EDC by Member States and highlighted that the EDC initiative is warmly welcomed. Recommendations include careful planning of the extension of the services covered, no merger of the parking card for persons with disabilities with the EDC into a single card, and no coverage of social security and healthcare benefits. Seven Member States and one region have so far submitted a position paper (Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Sweden and Bavaria), all of them supportive and none of them expressing critical views of the - at the time forthcoming - legislative initiative.

Where Member States were critical and clearly opposed was the harmonisation of disability assessment, giving as the key reason the national competences that in their view they have. Member States were also against including in the initiative measures which would oblige service providers to grant preferential conditions to persons with disabilities. They were supportive of the initiative as described in the Commission Work programme, namely “proposing a European disability card ensuring the mutual recognition of disability status across all Member States”. The Commission was also clear in its presentations that there was no intention to extend that mutual recognition to cover the area of social security, and this was welcomed by Member States given that social security coordination is already regulated at EU level. In that context, at least three Member States expressed concerns about the different levels of disabilities recognised in some Member States.

Similarly, there is also consensus among other stakeholders, particularly persons with disabilities and also EP and EESC, on the need for the EDC and on it being proposed in legislative form.

The scope of the EDC (i.e. which services are covered) encounters more diverse views. Persons with disabilities favour the widest possible scope, as do the EP and the EESC, while Member States’ opinions are more varied. Six Member States expressed their preference to cover those services from the pilot, while two others showed openness to extending and one region expressed concerns about including transports. Organisations representing persons with disabilities would like a wide scope that would be extended to accessing social security benefits while they await disability assessment in a new host country. This view is also supported by the EESC. There is strong consensus among Member States (at least 19 of them were explicit about it) and also civil society that the European parking card should not be merged with the new EDC. One measure of concrete success of the EDC pilot, showing the support of those Member States that participated, is illustrated by the high number of cards issued by the participating countries at their own initiative and costs after the end of the pilot funding, as shown in the table below:

Table 2: The number of EU Disability Cards

5.2.6. Link between policy options and objectives 

The policy options presented above all aim to improve the access to services of persons with disabilities when travelling to or visiting other Member States. In this way policy options in areas A and B, together with the accompanying measures, correspond to the general objective of the initiative to facilitate free movement and equal access to services for persons with disabilities. Policy options A1 and A2 provide for a mandatory EDC model to be binding for all Member States. These policy options will facilitate the mutual recognition of disability status when persons with disabilities travel to or visit other Member States (specific objective 1). Policy options B1 and B2 will both facilitate the use of the EU parking card for persons with disabilities, while policy option B2 will contribute to a greater extent to increasing the legal certainty in its use (specific objective 2).

6.What are the impacts of the policy options?  

The assessment of each group of policy options address their potential social, economic, digital and environmental impacts, impacts on the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter, and impacts on competitiveness and SMEs. Benefits are evaluated qualitatively and – whenever possible – quantitatively. Costs are monetised whenever possible and, if monetisation cannot be achieved, they are evaluated qualitatively or in terms of their expected overall magnitude. All criteria and methodology are described in Annex 3 and Annex 4.

It is estimated that measures considered under policy area A would likely have stronger impacts in those Member States that did not join the pilot EU Disability Card (but not limited to them, as Member States which joined the pilot would also strongly benefit from more Member States joining, as the benefits of the card can be considered compounded by the number of Member States which have it). While under the policy area B impacts are expected to be stronger in those Member States, which did not implement additional measures to facilitate the recognition of the parking card (e.g. establish a national database of cardholders, adding security features to the card format).

It should be noted that the analysis of impacts is subject to a certain degree of uncertainty, given the general scarcity of data available on travelling of persons with disabilities, the low participation of service providers in the targeted surveys and the high number of assumptions applied.

Firstly, the limited available data on tourism participation and behaviours of persons with disabilities seriously constrains the possibility to provide a comprehensive picture. The only available data on a small subset of key dimensions of interest is given by the DG GROW report on accessible tourism 76 . However, the data dates back to 2012 and there are some concerns about its representativeness to the population of persons with disabilities. Secondly, there is limited quantitative evidence on the impacts of the policy options because of the lack of data on participation and behaviour, the limited information on the specific monetary and especially non-monetary preferential conditions available to persons with disabilities, the relevant challenges in estimating the costs of the initiative for national authorities and local providers. There is limited information on costs incurred by the pilot Member States during the implementation of the pilot EU Disability Card. Costs for service providers are difficult to assess rigorously due to the low participation of service providers in the targeted survey on costs. 

6.1.Assessment of the baseline scenario 

Social impacts

Under the baseline scenario, the travel gap existing between persons with disabilities and the general population may persist, widen further or reduce. The most pessimistic scenario (widening of the travel gap) takes into account the financial conditions of persons with disabilities that could worsen in the light of the energy transition and continued increase in the price of energy without policies aimed at counteracting their regressive effects. 77 However, the most likely outcome is that the travel gap would remain constant. 78 In this case, in the upper bound range 21 million persons with disabilities may be participating in tourism by 2030.

Persons with disabilities will continue to face difficulties in accessing preferential conditions due to the limited mutual recognition of disability status. While additional Member States would remain free to join the pilot EU Disability Card this is unlikely to happen to a wide extent – at least in the short term – given that in the period since the implementation of the pilot no additional Member States has joined the initiative and only one (Croatia) is considering doing so.

Consequently, limited changes in the participation in tourism of persons with disabilities are most likely. Their engagement in tourism will continue to be less, owing to the high uncertainty and disproportionately higher costs they face relative to the general population when travelling to other Member States, having consequences on their mobility and restricting their personal and social development, and level of inclusion. Likewise, the level of uncertainty regarding the recognition of their EU parking card will remain high, especially when travelling to other Member States leading to recurrent parking difficulties

Economic impacts

Costs for national administrations

The costs of the EDC for national administration are because the establishment of the card scheme, its production and distribution, the setup of national websites and the related awareness-raising campaigns. They are assessed based on the pilot EU Disability Card. If other Member States would join the initiative, they are expected to incur similar costs.

At least 190,000 EDC have been issued by 2023. The total implementation costs of the initiative have been estimated at between roughly 95,000 EUR and 530.000 EUR. 79 Since most of the costs are fixed one-off costs 80 , the cost per Card diminishes as more Cards are being issued, approaching its unit production and delivery costs.

The one-off cost of establishing the national website ranged roughly between 7,500 and 23,000 EUR. Awareness raising campaigns ranged from 20,000 to 70,000 EUR. The wide range of costs was due to differences in the implementation features chosen voluntarily by Member States. Variable costs such as production, delivery and updating of national websites were low. Production and delivery costs ranged between EUR 1.02 and 4.54 per card. 81 The cost of updating the website was not always monitored or some Member States did not report any costs. Among those reporting a positive value (Belgium, Finland and Malta; for Slovenia the information was not provided), it ranged from about EUR 1,000 to 4,500 over the period 2016 – 2018. 82  

It is important to note that only some of the population of persons with disabilities defined by Member States as eligible for the card will actually apply, i.e. those persons who intend to travel to other Member States. Costs for national administrations therefore cannot be extrapolated from the basis of the entire population of persons assessed by a Member States as having a disability; they will in practice be much lower.

For the EU parking card, under the baseline, the costs of updating the security formats and features of national parking cards would mainly consist of the redesign of the cards and the printing and distribution of the new format. Some Member States have already added security features to the standard EU parking card model 83 , therefore, it can be expected that more Member States will do so to fight fraud and forgery. The total costs will depend on the features added and the number of Member States implementing changes, and cannot be quantified ex-ante.

National authorities may incur additional costs to collect information and train staff on the different formats of the EU parking cards in place in other Member States, even though such costs can be expected to be minor.

Costs for persons with disabilities from not fully enjoying cost savings granted by the preferential conditions when travelling abroad are estimated to range from roughly EUR 7 to 30 per day for a 4-day trip if travelling alone, or from EUR 20 to 60 per day if travelling with a personal assistant. 84 These higher costs are de facto foregone benefits for persons with disabilities. It is expected that almost half of persons with disabilities, travelling abroad experienced situation where they haven’t benefitted from preferential conditions. 85 These costs do not include foregone non-monetary benefits that cannot be easily quantified.

At the same time, EU parking card holders may also incur fines in case their card is not recognised in a (destination) Member State. The cost of parking fines varies depending on the Member State and can be substantial. 86 Due to uncertainty in the recognition of the EU parking card, cardholders may opt for the purchase of parking spaces not reserved for them when travelling to other Member States. The costs of parking in off-street structures were estimated at around EUR 1,100 per parking space, per year in 2013. 87 The average cost of parking spots for the general public use was estimated at EUR 800 per space, per year. Adjusted per inflation and per day (instead of per year), this cost is estimated to be roughly EUR 4 per day, which is certainly a lower bound as shorter periods tend to be more expensive. Other estimates calculating the average price of parking in 32 European cities have put the number at about EUR 3 per hour. 88

Costs for service providers

Service providers from non-pilot Member States offering preferential conditions to persons with disabilities from other Member States would continue to incur the costs associated with the difficulties in verifying the proof of disability given the differences in national disability cards or certificates and their lack of forgery and fraud control features. These costs are not quantifiable and rather involve time delays and extra burden costs. In addition, they may also miss out on financial and non-financial benefits due to the lower number of persons with disabilities from other Member States accessing their services.

The service providers who joined the pilot EU Disability Card initiative will continue to benefit from the easy recognition of cardholders from the participating Member States but will still face such costs as concerns persons with disabilities from the other Member States. When offering preferential conditions to persons with disabilities from other Member States, they are likely to have direct financial costs. However, this impact is not expected to be significant, given that customers with disabilities from other Member States appear to make up about 1% of the total client base and a majority of the respondents reported low costs (below EUR 30 per customer). 89

Reduced earnings in the market for accessible tourism for the society and economy

The limited participation in tourism of persons with disabilities would prevent the full development of the market for accessible tourism, the latter being an important component of the tourism industry. The average daily spending of persons with disabilities aged 15 to 64 and undertaking overnight trips in the EU was estimated at EUR 102 in 2012. 90 The total direct economic contribution of accessible tourism at the EU level was estimated at EUR 62 billion, with an indirect multiplier of 1.84. 91 This indirect impact includes the jobs created by the tourism industry by the travel of persons with disabilities (around 1.6m persons employed across the EU) and gains for secondary markets related to the tourism industry. Under the baseline scenario, the sector will fall short of reaching its full potential. Considering a constant travel gap between persons with disabilities and the general population of at least 6%, the economic loss due to the reduced travel of persons with disabilities can be estimated at roughly EUR 3.72 billion in the whole EU in 2012 (EUR 4.5 billion in 2023). 92

Digital impacts

Recent technological progress can be expected to continue, bringing enhanced digitalisation for stakeholders such as public administrations, service providers and persons with disabilities.

While national administrations and citizens would likely benefit from EU funds 93 support, nevertheless some issues linked to limited digitalisation of national administrations may persist under the baseline scenario, at least in the short-term. Indeed, not all Member States have a digital registry of persons with recognised disabilities and not all competent authorities make adequate use of digital tools. Still, Member States’ authorities at the national or local level are moving to adopt such databases and improve enforcement of parking rights including for cardholders 94 .

Environmental impacts

Small recurrent or additional emissions can be expected as persons with disabilities travel, but less than the general population. 95 These lower emissions, however, would be negligible because of the small share of persons with disabilities choosing to travel relative to the entire population of persons participating in tourism in the EU.

Fundamental Rights

Under the baseline scenario, certain fundamental rights cannot be ensured to a greater extent for persons with disabilities.

·Freedom of movement (Art. 45 EUCFR): the lack of mutual recognition of disability status across Member States for persons travelling hinders their possibility to fully enjoy free movement rights 96 .

·Integration of persons with disabilities (Art. 26 EUCFR): the lack of mutual recognition of disability status would continue to discourage persons with disabilities from travelling and participating in tourism across the EU, and this would have negative consequences on their full participation in society.

·Non-discrimination (Art. 21 EUCFR): some degree of discrimination and inequality in access to services would persist across the EU because persons with disabilities would continue to have limited access to preferential conditions provided by services in across the EU compared to residents. A significant part of respondents to the public consultation and the targeted survey for persons with disabilities declared that they were aware of other persons with disabilities who were denied access to preferential conditions in other Member States. This may lead to persons with disabilities deciding not to use those services, leading to unequal outcomes. 97

Competitiveness and SMEs

The baseline scenario is expected to have minor negative impacts on competitiveness and SMEs as the market for accessible tourism would be underdeveloped compared to its full potential. This would cause missed earnings for companies working in the sector, the great majority of which are SMEs according to the World Tourism Organisation. 98

Furthermore, for SMEs offering preferential conditions (17 out of 23 companies responding to the targeted survey on costs for service providers were SMEs) the time cost of verifying different national disability cards or certificates from other Member States, and the foregone earnings due to the smaller number of persons with disabilities travelling as a result of uncertainty, would have a larger impact, in proportion to total turnover. 99

6.2.Assessment of policy options aimed at facilitating mutual recognition of disability status in the EU in relation to access to services when visiting another Member State (Area A)

Social impacts

The policy options are expected to have moderate positive social impacts, larger in the case of option A2. The EDC is likely to increase the number of persons with disabilities travelling to other Member States 100 . This impact will be achieved through reduced burden and costs and improved access to preferential conditions provided by some services. Under the more optimistic scenarios of increased participation in tourism 101 this could be expected to range between 70 and 75% by 2030, thus growing by between 1.1 and 6.4 percentage points compared to the baseline. This will result in 300,000 to 2 million additional persons with disabilities participating in tourism, compared to the baseline. 102 The travel gap between the general population and persons with disabilities would decrease by 1.1 to 6.3 percentage points. However, as described above such an optimistic increase is not realistic as it would be possible only in case of significant EU-wide improvements to accessibility and financial affordability of travel for persons with disabilities, in addition to the removal of the uncertainty regarding the lack of mutual recognition of disability cards / certificates.

Therefore, further calculations are made to provide more realistic scenarios that assess the potential impact of the policy options on the travel gap. For these calculations a specific question from the public consultation was used, which asked respondents to assess to what extent the European Disability Card could increase the number of persons with disabilities travelling in the EU. It must be underlined that the estimates should be treated only as estimations and must be interpreted with caution. The methodology is described in detail in Annex 8 Based on the above, it is estimated that option A1 may reduce the 6.3 percentage points travel gap by between 1.32 and 1.94 percentage points. Option A2 would have stronger impact and is expected to reduce the travel gap by between 2.8 and 4.12 percentage points. 103

Option A2 would strongly reduce the uncertainty for persons with disabilities. Indeed, in the public consultation, five sectors that were outside the scope of the option A1 were mentioned by respondents among the most frequently used: Phones and Internet (55% of respondents), Travel agencies (22.5%), Sports centres (13.4%), Electricity and Gas (12.7%), Legal assistance (8.9%). Very similarly, the respondents also indicated sectors outside those covered by option A1 as those they would like to see covered by the EDC: Phones and Internet (36.5%), Legal assistance (33.2%), Sports centres (26.7%), Travel agencies (23.6%), Electricity and Gas (17.9%), Postal Services (13.2%).

Policy options A1 and A2 would increase take-up of cultural services, leisure and sports activities and transport for persons with disabilities. Almost half of participants with recognised disability in the public consultation highlighted that they have been denied access to preferential conditions when travelling to other Member States (307 out of 697). For instance, some museums explicitly state that foreign national disability cards or certificates “cannot be treated”. 104 In addition, more service providers are likely or very likely to offer preferential conditions also to customers with disabilities from other EU Member States if a uniform and reliable EU proof of disability status existed. Service providers consulted mentioned the difficulties in verifying the proof of disability status among the main reasons for not extending the provision of preferential conditions, which they would otherwise provide. 105  

An important benefit for persons with disabilities would come from saving in the public and private transport sector. Transport is highly valued by persons with disabilities and perceived as crucial by CSOs to ensure mobility of persons with disabilities. 106  Transport was mentioned as the first sector that they would like to see covered by the EDC by 94% of persons with recognised disabilities in the public consultation. 107  

Accompanying measures are assessed qualitatively. They would enhance positive social impacts from the increased knowledge of preferential conditions also in the country of residence resulting from awareness raising campaigns and the websites providing information on the existence of the EDC and of preferential conditions. Increased take-up of services in sectors such as culture can be beneficial for personal well-being, social cohesion and better participation in society. 108 The actual magnitude of such impacts would depend on additional factors, such as the level of accessibility of the sectors involved.

Economic impacts

Policy options A1 and A2 would create both benefits (mainly in the form of cost savings) and costs for stakeholders, in particular service providers. It would also create cost for public adminsitrations that heavily subsidise the transport sector. However, these costs would be compensated by the additional persons travelling accompanying persons with disabilities such as family and friends who will pay the travel themselves.

Distributional impacts across Member States

To explain the expected distributional impact of the initiative it is important to understand that the travel pattern of persons with disabilities does not necessarily follow traditional tourism patterns followed by the general population, for example “summer north/south travel”. Evidence from the evaluation of the pilot EDC 109 showed that neighbouring countries are the first destination of choice for persons with disabilities since the geographical closeness makes travel easier and cheaper. The stakeholder consultations conducted in the context of the previous evaluation confirmed the need to extend the EDC to all Member States, and in particular to neighbouring countries of current pilot Member States, in order for the EDC to facilitate the cross-border mobility of persons with disabilities. Based on this evidence, it can be assumed that geographic proximity will affect travel patterns of cardholders of the new EDC. In turn, the distributional impacts of the new EDC will be equally distributed across all Member States as all of them have neighbouring countries, thus being potential destinations of persons with disabilities travelling across the EU.  

Impacts on persons with disabilities

Improving access to preferential conditions for persons with disabilities travelling to other Member States would reduce their costs in comparison to baseline situation, but not necessarily completely eliminate them. Most monetary preferential conditions, such as reduced tariffs and tickets, are in the transport, culture, and leisure sectors. So both options A1 and A2 are likely to significantly reduce those costs for persons with disabilities. In a case in which the duration of the stay increases up to 2 months, total savings are estimated at EUR 100 to 400. 110 For option A2, benefits would be higher, as they include also other sectors and non-monetary benefits.

Impacts on service providers

Policy options A1 and A2 are likely to lead to benefits, i.e. cost savings for service providers already offering preferential conditions to persons with disabilities from other Member States as they won’t have to check diverging national disability cards or certificates anymore. 12 out of 18 service providers, who are in such situation, considered that a tool such as the EDC could simplify the process of recognition of disability status to a moderate, high or very high extent. 111  Five service providers who do not yet offer preferential conditions to non-residents would expect a positive or no impact in terms of benefits to costs ratio; none was expecting a negative impact. Most expected at least some benefits in terms of visibility, reputation, quality of services, perception on the importance of accessibility, higher volume of customers from the EU, insights for future developments of services. 112  

The costs for service providers are not expected to be significant. Even in the most optimistic scenario, where the travel gap of persons with disabilities closes with respect to the general population, the growth in the number of persons with disabilities travelling would not be significant enough to impact the client base of service providers from other Member States, and the range of persons with disability would remain between 1 and 2%. Furthermore, costs for service providers are potentially compensated by an expansion of their client base resulting from increased accessibility of their services, improved visibility and reputation, or from access of additional customers accompanying persons with disabilities, such as family and friends, who are not the personal assistant and therefore do not benefit from preferential conditions. 113  The example of the pilot EU Disability Card showed that the majority of service providers experienced benefits (monetary and non-monetary) which, at a minimum, outweighed costs. 114

The evidence from the evaluation of the pilot EDC showed that benefits clearly outweighed the costs for service providers. More specifically, the majority of service providers consulted during the pilot study stated that:

·They attracted new customers by joining the programme. Cardholders are often accompanied by additional paying visitors (e.g. friends, family members), who otherwise would not have used the services, with the result that service providers actually sell more tickets due to the EDC. Consultations with service providers conducted as part of the present assignment support this: 18 out of 21 service providers reported that cardholders are joined on average by 1-2 visitors paying a full ticket.

·The service providers gained positive visibility through the EDC.

·The service providers improved their knowledge regarding accessibility and services with inputs from persons with disabilities. More precisely, they affirmed that they better take account of persons with disabilities in their services and have gained new insights for the future development of their services.

A specific assessment of costs of offering preferential conditions to persons with disabilities from other Member States was carried out for the transport sector, which is both the sector that offers the most preferential conditions to persons with disabilities and is most frequently linked to short-term stays. These calculations are outlined in Annex 4. Data on preferential conditions offered in a sample of 10 countries was collected and assessed in terms of direct costs for transport service providers. 115 By considering the proportion of those who do not yet benefit from preferential conditions, the direct costs of offering preferential conditions in the transport sector to persons with disabilities from other Member States are estimated to be between 0.1 and 1.9 EUR per capita, up to 0.2 and 3.9 EUR per capita when extending the preferential conditions offered to personal assistants, where the range depends on the country in question, its tourist flows, and the extent of preferential conditions currently offered to nationals. 116

The Member States with the highest costs in transport, in absolute terms, are also the most populous ones, which are destinations of the majority of tourism trips in the EU and offer the most generous preferential conditions. For example, DE’s costs range between EUR 23.6 and 28 million for persons with disabilites (aged 15-65) from other Member States (including personal assistants). This represents 17.8% - 21.0% of the costs of offering the same preferential conditions to all persons aged 65+.

Similarly, costs for ES range between EUR 22 and 31 million. 117

The true cost is certainly closer to the lower bound of the estimates for several reasons: firstly, 44% is the proportion of persons with a disability responding ever being denied access to preferential conditions abroad. The proportion in the transport sector is likely to be significantly lower, in particular with respect to discounted tariffs; secondly, an additional mitigation of the costs comes from the fact that persons with disabilities overlap with the elderly population, which often also benefits from similar preferential conditions. 18 out of 23 service providers responding to the targeted survey were already offering preferential conditions to persons with disabilities from other EU Member States. 118

Additional adjustment costs for service providers, linked to the implementation of policy options A1 and A2, may involve small labour costs to be incurred in order to train their staff on recognition. While the majority of respondents to the survey did not foresee, as a result of the introduction of the EDC, a significant change in such costs, about half of them envisage the possibility of a small increase in the cost of training staff for the provision of personalised services. 119 While training staff is mostly a fixed cost, providing personalised service to the clients is rather a variable cost.

Policy options A1 and A2 would also entail some administrative costs for service providers linked to yearly reporting on the type of preferential conditions offered (e.g. data collection, data storage, data export and communication with national authorities). The costs would not be significant. 120

In general, the adjustment, administrative costs and the cost savings per service provider are expected to be comparable for policy options A1 and A2.

Impacts for national administrations

The costs linked to the production and distribution of the EDC for Member States are expected to be the same for policy options A1 and A2. 19 Member States would have to establish an EDC scheme from scratch and incur such costs. An ex-ante evaluation of implementation costs of this kind of initiative is made harder by lack of certainty on the actual implementation steps and the efficiency of national administrations in implementing the policy. In the EU Disability Card pilot project, costs ranged from 1.02 to 4.54 EUR per unit of production and delivery, and 90,000 to 535,000 EUR for the total implementation. 121 The total estimated costs of producing and delivering the Card for the 19 Member States under both options A1 and A2 are expected to fall within this range, and might be even lower given that the common Card format would reduce design costs.

Further adjustment costs would arise from non-legislative accompanying measure for A1 and A2, i.e. the establishment of national EDC websites providing information on the Cards issued and the service providers offering preferential conditions. These costs are not expected to deviate significantly from those incurred by participants in the pilot initiative, where the fixed costs of setting up the websites ranged between 7,500 and 23,000 EUR per Member State. However, they may even be reduced if Member States follow a common website format. The costs of maintenance of the websites were negligible for Member States participating in the pilot, and never exceeded 5,000 EUR per year.

It is important to indicate that the experience with the EU Disability Card pilot did not show any major unintended consequences in the participating Member States. This can also be attributed to the fact that the mechanism envisaged in the proposal – i.e. the issuing of cards to individuals – is already usual practice in all Member States. Taking into account the proportionality of the analysis, for example the impact on the transport sector is very relevant to tourism and has a large number of preferential conditions, and at the same time is also often subject to subsidies from the public budget. Based on the aggregated data on the costs in comparison to turnover and, as demonstrated by the figures in annex 4, the total costs are assessed to be negligible (and by extension are therefore negligible also for public service providers).

Finally, additional costs would be incurred to run the awareness raising campaigns. The costs per Member State are not expected to deviate significantly from those incurred by participants in the pilot initiative, where they ranged between 21,000 and 70,000 EUR per Member State. Costs related to replying to questions, handling complaints and gathering data for the monitoring of implementation are not considered here as they are only a small fraction of total costs.

Wider macroeconomic benefits in the market for accessible tourism

A wider macroeconomic benefit of policy options A1 and A2 would involve an increase in turnover for the accessible tourism market. The mutual recognition of disability status for persons with disabilities travelling in the EU would increase their demand for tourism products and cause the sector to moderately expand. As anticipated in chapter 6.1. on the impacts of the baseline scenario, this would also have positive indirect effects, such as advantages for secondary markets. The overall aggregate economic impact reflected in the accessible tourism value added, is estimated to be in a range between 1 and 1.5 billion EUR for option A1 and between 2.1 and 3.1 billion EUR for option A2. 122  It is important to underline that, given the way it is calculated, this figure includes the value added generated by persons with disabilities given all their activities and spending when travelling. As such, it is not limited to activities carried out within the specific sectors specified or not specified by the policy options (A1 or A2). In short, it has to be understood as the extra value added generated by all activities of persons with disabilities when travelling. For each policy option, the impact is calculated by multiplying the impact in terms of the travel gap with the value added of the market due to travels from persons with disabilities obtained from the DG GROW report and adjusting it for inflation over the period 2012-2023.

Digital impacts

Policy options A1 and A2 would entail similar limited positive indirect digital impacts. One digital impact of the policy options would entail limited improvements in the digital skills of persons with disabilities as they would be incentivised to use digital tools such as the national and EU websites to obtain information on the rights granted to them by the Card, its eligibility criteria and the preferential conditions offered. This impact would be greater, the better the synergies with the Web Accessibility Directive mandating accessibility of websites of public sector bodies in the EU would be.

A second digital impact would be linked to the minimum common standards to be followed by national administrations in line with the policy option, including the establishment of a national EDC website. The implementation of these standards would entail some improved digitalisation of national public administrations in the field of social policy, compared to the baseline. This would also have beneficial effects on data collection on persons with disabilities, which is insufficient in several Member States.

The total EU27 one-off costs for public authorities to build an IT system for digital EDC are estimated to be EUR 1.67 million, with recurring maintenance costs estimated at around EUR 250,000 per year when issuing cards for all persons reporting “severe” limitations (this is the group of persons with disabilities who is likely to get EDCs). 123

Environmental impacts

The environmental impacts would be twofold, but small. Firstly, the negative environmental impact of travel may increase due to an increased number of persons with disability travelling within the EU. Both options might however redirect some travel from cars to other means of transport, such as public transport, as it would become easier for persons with disabilities to enjoy preferential conditions related to transport abroad. This effect is difficult to quantify but might partly offset the environmental impact of higher overall mobility of persons with disabilities.

Secondly, the production of plastic cards is expected to leave an environmental footprint. This impact will vary depending on the final format of the card and its features. Studies estimate the carbon footprint of plastic cards similar to the EDC (such as cards used for public transport and access control schemes) at around 40g of CO2 equivalent. 124 In this context, assuming a future production of EDCs in a range between 5 and 16 million, 125 the overall environmental footprint would be in the range of 200 to 640 tonnes of CO2 equivalent, comparable to the total yearly of emissions of around 60 EU residents. 126

In conclusion, both policy options are not expected to have significant impacts on the environment.

Fundamental rights

Policy options A1 and A2 would have strong positive impacts on ensuring certain fundamental rights within the EU.

·Freedom of movement (Art. 45 EUCFR): the policy options would facilitate the free movement of persons with disabilities across the EU by reducing difficulties linked to the lack of mutual recognition of their disability status.

·Integration of persons with disabilities (Art. 26 EUCFR): the policy options would be beneficial to ensuring social inclusion and integration of persons with disabilities.

·Non-discrimination (Art. 21 EUCFR): the policy options would contribute to the principles of non-discrimination and equality in access to services. The preferential conditions and the personalised services offered in several sectors to persons with disabilities are an important factor determining their choice to use such services, as they often suffer greater economic uncertainty and has special accessibility requirements. This positive contribution to non-discrimination compared to the baseline would, however, be limited by the scope of option A1, only concerning the sectors of sports, leisure, culture and transport. In the remaining internal market services, the barriers highlighted in this section would persist. The contribution to this fundamental right would be more far-reaching under option A2.

SMEs and competitiveness

Policy options A1 and A2 are not expected to have significant impacts on competitiveness and SMEs and those that will occur would likely be positive.

In the targeted survey for service providers, 15 responding SMEs offering preferential conditions to persons with disabilities from the EU believed that the EDC would simplify the process of recognising the disability status of customers with disability from other Member States, meaning that this category of stakeholders would benefit from the options by reducing the time needed to check for the disability documents presented by their customers. 127 Similarly, all respondents, irrespective if SMEs or large companies, believe that extending preferential conditions under the EDC would lead to non-negative overall impact in terms of benefits relative to costs. 128

Furthermore, SMEs may experience some positive returns deriving from the small positive economic impacts of the policy in the field of accessible tourism, as described in the section on economic impacts, given that many SMEs operate in the tourism sector. 129

6.3.Assessment of policy options aimed at facilitating use and legal certainty in the use of the EU parking card for persons with disabilities (Area B)

Social impacts

As compared to the baseline scenario, policy options B1 and B2 are expected to have positive social impacts, with the impact of B2 being larger.

Participation in tourism of cardholders is likely to increase as a result of greater certainty regarding the full recognition of their EU parking cards when travelling to different Member States. The extent of this increase is difficult to quantify. For option B1 the increase is likely to be limited compared to baseline, given the voluntary nature of the option. On opposite, the mandatory nature of option B2 is expected to reduce uncertainty for persons with disabilities and hence boost their propensity to travel more. Thus the estimated impact of option B2 to reducing the travel gap ranges between 0.27 and 0.4 percentage points. 130  In both cases, enhanced participation in tourism would entail a series of positive social consequences, ranging from greater inclusion through increased take-up of cultural services, to social and personal development. In terms of total magnitude, social impacts related to increased participation in tourism are likely to be small compared to baseline, as the number of the EU parking card holders with disabilities constitute a small share of the EU population of persons with recognised disabilities. 

Benefits for persons with disabilities would be due to more accessible information on the EU parking card conditions, reducing time costs for obtaining the information. 131 Cost savings would also come from the reduced / avoided fines 132 caused by the lack of recognition of EU parking cards and by the lack of knowledge on the rights granted in different Member States. 133

Economic impacts

Impacts for national administrations

The benefits (cost savings) would be linked to a reduction in the enforcement cost for public authorities due to implementation of the enhanced security features of the EU parking card. These cannot be quantified precisely, as mainly depending on the time savings linked to homogeneous security features of EU parking cards. Furthermore, the establishment of national databases providing information on the number and identity of residents that are cardholders would be especially beneficial for enforcement authorities. 134 The presence of such data storing systems would make enforcement of parking rights easier at the national level, facilitating controls on national cardholders. While the two policy options only recommend accessibility of the databases to national authorities within each Member State, it can be expected that some of them would make the database also accessible to other Member States thus leading to additional improvements compared to the baseline.

The main adjustment costs of policy options B1 and B2 would be implementation costs for national administrations to update the card to reflect the revised EU model, and its security formats and features. 135 The total costs are expected to be minor for national administrations. The majority of national authorities reported that the adoption of the EU parking card did not entail significant costs for authorities in charge of managing it and issuing it. 136 The same can be assumed for the update of the card, for which the management system would not change. For option B1, total costs would be reduced, given the non-binding nature and the fact that some Member States already updated security features of their national parking cards. 10 Member States are already using a hologram to prevent forgery of the Card, and in addition, 3 are using a QR code and 3 are using a bar code. Further adjustment costs would be linked to the establishment of the national database of cardholders, foreseen either by the guidelines of option B1 or the minimum requirements of option B2. 137 These costs would be limited to the Member States not already in possession of such a database and would only be incurred by the Member States choosing to implement the updated Recommendation.

For the national websites providing information on the parking card, costs are not expected to deviate significantly from those incurred in the context of the pilot EU Disability Card, which entailed the set-up of websites to provide information on the card (similarly to what would be carried out in the context of option B1, with the parking card). Dividing the costs between fixed set-up costs and annual maintenance costs of updating the websites, the fixed costs ranged between EUR 7,524 and EUR 22,936 per Member State. The annual variable maintenance costs ranged between 0 and EUR 4,652 per year. 138 It should be considered that the final total costs resulting from these estimates would be an upper bound, as Member States may decide to incorporate dedicated pages providing information on the EDC in already existing national websites on the rights of persons with disabilities.

Wider macroeconomic benefits in the market for accessible tourism

The aggregate economic impacts of policy options B1 and B2 would be mainly linked to the potential increase in travelling patterns of cardholders, which would affect (although with a limited magnitude) the market for accessible tourism. These mechanisms are similar to those already described for the baseline and for policy options A1 and A2, but likely to be significantly smaller. The yearly value added for accessible tourism 139  of option B2 is estimated at 0.2 - 0.3 billion EUR. 140

Digital impacts

Policy options B1 and B2 are expected to have the same small digital impacts. The difference is that for option B1, these impacts would concern only the Member States implementing the necessary measures to comply with the updated Recommendation. For option B2, they would be more far-reaching as they would involve all Member States. Member States establishing national databases of cardholders, accessible to national enforcement authorities, will experience limited improvements in digitalisation and modernisation in the management of their national parking card schemes. For the Member States following the updated Recommendation, the databases have the potential of making the control of parking cards more efficient (as authorities could directly check the registration of the cardholders in the national database). At the same time, the availability of online information on the use and application procedures for the parking card, foreseen by another of the accompanying measures of policy option B1, could encourage use of digital tool by persons with disabilities. For this digital impact to occur, however, accessibility of such digital platforms would have to be ensured.

Environmental impacts

The environmental impacts of policy options B1 and B2 are negative, but likely to be insignificant in magnitude compared to the baseline. The impact would be linked to increased travel by car of cardholders following greater certainty in the recognition of EU parking cards among Member States. Due to the relatively small numbers of cardholders across the EU, this impact can safely be assumed to be negligible. A further impact may be linked to the increased production of the EU parking cards to replace previous ones. However, as demonstrated for policy option A2 and considering the lower number of parking cards issued, this impact is likely to be insignificant, as it would be lower than the emissions produced by 60 EU residents on average in a year.

Fundamental rights

Policy options B1 and B2 would have strong positive impacts on ensuring certain fundamental rights within the EU.

·Freedom of movement (Art. 45 EUCFR): the policy options entail to a greater extent a facilitation of the free movement of persons with disabilities, as a result of greater certainty in the recognition of EU parking cards across the Member States. 141  

·Integration of persons with disabilities (Art. 26 EUCFR): increased travel propensity of cardholders and their participation in tourism and subsequent take-up of cultural activities would positively contribute to social inclusion and integration to the society of persons with disabilities as compared to the baseline.

Competitiveness and SMEs

The policy options B1 and B2 are not expected to have any significant impact on competitiveness and SMEs. As discussed above, the increased participation of persons with disabilities in tourism due to more certainty regarding the recognition of EU parking cards across the EU would be beneficial for the accessible tourism market. Tourism is a sector where SMEs are prevalent. The impact, however, is likely to be very small in magnitude due to the relatively small number of cardholders compared to the number of persons with disabilities and the total EU population travelling.

Summary of estimated impacts per option

This table below presents the figures related to the accessible tourism value added in the above sections “Wider macroeconomic benefits in the market for accessible tourism” in two scenarios, namely a more optimistic one assuming a higher reduction of the travel gap of 6.3 percentage points and a second scenario with a more moderate reduction. Details of the calculation are included in Annex 9.

Table 3: Estimated impact of the policy options in terms of travel gap reductions and value added in the market for accessible tourism

7.How do the options compare?

The options for each policy area (A and B) are compared against the baseline for the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. When rating the policy options, the social, economic, environmental, digital impact and the impacts on fundamental rights, competitiveness and SMEs (details in Chapter 6) were all taken into account. Based on this assessment, a preferred option is identified for both policy areas and then described in Chapter 8.

Policy options are scored from “0” to “+++” (“---") depending on the direction of the impact. “+” (“-“) represents a very small positive (negative) effect and “+++” (“---") a very large positive (negative) effect compared to the baseline. 0 means that the option would not constitute a significant deviation from the baseline scenario. The baseline scenario is rated 0. For details see Annex 4.

Effectiveness

The key criteria to assess effectiveness is the extent to which they contribute to the objectives (Section 5) and they ease the free movement of persons with disabilities within the EU by facilitating (i) mutual recognition of disability status when persons with disabilities travel to or visit other Member States (Policy area A) and (ii) use and legal certainty in the use of the EU parking card for persons with disabilities (Policy area B). Each policy area is assessed separately. See summary overview of the effectiveness in Table 3 .

Under Policy area A, both options score positively. By mandating the production and use of a EDC, both policy options would effectively create a tool that could be easily recognised across borders for the purposes of accessing services by persons with disabilities. The same format across the EU and the addition of security features will further enhance its acceptance by reducing risks of fraud and uncertainty about the validity of the card. All this will facilitate the mutual recognition of disability status of cardholders in other Member States, especially for those with invisible disabilities. Policy option A1 is quite effective. In addition to reducing uncertainty it increases access for persons with disabilities to preferential conditions abroad by ensuring the recognition through the Card in the sectors that are very important for them: culture, leisure, sports and transport. Policy option A2 is the most effective. It would extend the validity of the EDC to all services offering preferential conditions (with or without remuneration). This would remove any uncertainty related to the access of provisions of preferential conditions abroad, even if most of the preferential conditions are found in sectors already covered by A1. The certainty of full mutual recognition is the main added benefit of option A2 relative to option A1, and the reason why the policy option has a higher score on effectiveness.

Under Policy area B, both options score positively. Introduction of common security features following the updated model would make the parking card more uniform across Member States, facilitating its use and recognition. Some aspects of policy option B1 would, however, limit its effectiveness. It would be left to Member States to decide whether to adopt/implement the new security features and to adhere to the EU parking card model, as well as when this would be done. Thus, the divergences and uncertainty could/would remain. The effectiveness of policy option B2, on the other hand, is higher: by taking the form of a binding legislative instrument, the policy option would make minimum requirements regarding the EU common parking card model and its security format and features mandatory.

The accompanying measures would enhance the effectiveness of all options. With more/better information and awareness raising, cards will be easier recognised and used by all stakeholders.

Table 4 – Comparison of the effectiveness of options under Policy Areas A and B in relation to the baseline

Efficiency

‘Efficiency’ refers to the assessment of the benefits of each option as opposed to its associated costs. As only some benefits can be monetized, the efficiency is operationalised as cost-effectiveness, looking at each category of stakeholder. Also in this case, all policy options are compared to the baseline scenario (section 6.1). Table 7 at the end of the Section summarises the efficiency scores of the policy options.

Under Policy area A, both options score positively. For both options, resources will be required by national administrations to adapt to EU legislation on the EDC and set up the national schemes for correct design and implementation of the Card, including all the additional measures envisaged by the policy option. These costs are not expected to differ substantially between policy options A1 and A2. The costs for service providers offering preferential conditions would be minor for both policy options. In spite of incurring some costs, their expected benefits will offset the costs, as reported by all service providers involved in all dedicated data collections.

As most of preferential conditions in terms of savings are offered in the sectors covered by option A1, the greater efficiency of option A2 relative to option A1 comes mostly from the larger reduction in uncertainty for persons with disability, which is expected to compound the positive impacts on their travel propensity. Removing any uncertainty related to the provision of preferential conditions, even in sectors where reduced tariffs and discounts are less relevant, option A2 achieves greater benefits with comparable costs to option A1, and is therefore deemed more efficient.

Under Policy area B, option B1 would not require Member States to make changes to their national parking card models. Therefore, the increase in benefits is uncertain and would likely be limited. Policy option B2, would entail higher costs compared to the baseline, as it would make the update of security features of the EU parking card mandatory for Member States. At the same time, the option would also lead to higher cost savings compared to the baseline.

The accompanying measures would enhance the efficiency of all options. With more/better information, cards will be easier recognised and used by all stakeholders.

Table 5 – Comparison of the efficiency of options under Policy Areas A and B in relation to the baseline

Coherence

“Coherence” refers to the consistency of each option with the values, aims, objectives and policy initiatives of the EU. The key ones identified are the EU disability acquis, fundamental rights of the EU, UNCRPD, the EPSR.  Table 5 summarises the ratings of the policy options in terms of coherence.

Under Policy area A, both options have the same positive rating. Both policy options would fit into a series of EU initiatives that have recently facilitated the movement of persons with disabilities in the EU. In this context, an initiative such as the EDC would fill a gap in current legislation. The highest degree of coherence of the policy options in reaching specific objective 1 would be reached, however, in combination with the pilot EU Disability Card initiative undertaken by the 8 EU Member States having already introduced an EDC scheme. Both policy options would absorb the mainstreamed pilot initiative and its goal of starting a process of mutual recognition of disability status, extending its effects to all EU Member States. Option A1 would maintain the scope of the pilot in terms of sectors, while option A2 would extend the scope to all services in the internal market. Both would consequently be assigned the same ranking.

Also under Policy area B, both options are assigned the same ranking and are found to be coherent with the current EU policy scenarios in terms of parking rights for persons with disabilities.

Table 6 – Overview of ratings of the baseline and policy options in terms of coherence

Subsidiarity and proportionality

“Subsidiarity and proportionality” refer to whether the policy options are appropriate and do not go beyond what is necessary to address the problems satisfactorily. Both policy options concerning the European Disability Card respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and are given the maximum rating in relation to this criterion. They create an instrument that acts as a proof of disability, but do not alter national definitions and assessment criteria for disability status. Hence, they do not go beyond what is necessary and appropriate for the EU action. This conclusion is based on the details provided in the subsidiarity grid in the accompanying document.

Table 7 – Summary overview of ratings of the options

Potential net benefits of the policy options

To compute the net benefits of the policy options, a rather conservative approach is taken, considering in the calculations the lower bound of the accessible tourism value added impacts and taking the upper bound of potential costs, wherever applicable. The increased value added, generated by persons with disability travelling more, comprises all the aggregated benefits of the policy options. The costs of providing preferential conditions, which are necessary as a result of the EDC, are included in total costs even though they represent at the same time a saving for persons with disabilities and would cancel each other out. Thus, the final estimate, given the available data and assumptions made, is expected to be a lower bound estimate of the overall net benefit of the policy options. See Annex 9 for detailed quatification of the costs.

Table 8 Total estimates of benefits, costs and net benefits of the policy options

8.Preferred option

Under Policy area A, the preferred option is A2 with the highest overall score as well as per criterion. While the option would have higher total costs compared to the baseline, the magnitude of these costs would be limited for both Member States and service providers, and would be partly compensated by cost savings for service providers (including potentially higher turnover due to paying persons accompanying persons with disabilities such as family and friends) and significant benefits for persons with disabilities. Option A2 entails higher benefits for persons with disabilities also due to the wider scope the EDC would have in terms of services, extending beyond the sectors of sports, leisure, culture and transport. At the same time, total costs for service providers would increase but would also largely be offset by cost savings and benefits, while implementation costs for national administrations in terms of producing, distributing and advertising the card would remain the same. Thanks to its wider scope, option A2 would also lead to improvements in the participation in tourism of persons with disabilities thus bringing more pronounced social and economic impacts.

Under the policy area B, the preferred option is B2. It is found to achieve the highest score in relation to specific objective 2. Option B2 is the most effective in ensuring the mutual recognition of EU parking cards, and this translates into its higher score even though it would be slightly more costly for Member States than option B1.

A combination of policy option A2 (the introduction of an EDC in all Member States on a mandatory basis) with option B2 (an EU legislative act to provide for the mutual recognition of EU parking cards based on a common EU model) is found as the most favourable and thus the preferred policy option.

Option A2 is the most effective at facilitating the mutual recognition of disability status, as it mandates the creation of the EDC and can be easily recognised across Member States. The EDC would eliminate uncertainty for both service providers having to check disability status of customers and for persons with disabilities travelling and/or visiting other Member States having to prove their disability status. Persons with disabilities would be able to rely on a homogeneous card showing disability status and valid at the EU level, and thus access preferential conditions across the EU.

Option B2 is the most effective at facilitating the recognition of the EU parking cards. As a binding legislative instrument it makes mandatory the minimum requirements of the EU common parking card model and its security format and features. The common format of EU parking cards would reduce uncertainty linked to their recognition in line with specific objective 2. This would encourage cardholders to travel to other Member States by car. It would also lead to cost savings, due to using public parking slots reserved for persons with disabilities rather than different parking spaces (e.g. private parking garages), which may be more costly and less accessible for cardholders.

The main adjustment costs would be linked to the update of the security formats and features of the EU parking cards and to the set-up of national databases to monitor cardholders and enforce parking rights. Additional costs would also include the cost of setting up and maintaining national websites providing information on the EU parking card, foreseen as an accompanying measure. These would be similar to the same costs for option A2. 142

In summary, the above mentioned ranges of travel gap reductions for policy options A2 and B2 lead to a yearly value added in the market for accessible tourism, with estimates ranging from 2.8 to 4.12 billion EUR for A2, and from 0.27 and 0.4 billion EUR for B2. 143

After taking account of the costs mentioned above, namely of offering preferential conditions, production of the cards, and other additional costs, the possible net benefits of the combination of the preferred options are shown below.

Table 9: Total conservative estimates for net benefits of the preferred policy options

Policy options A2 and B2 respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality of EU action. They do not go beyond what is necessary to address the problem identified and achieve specific objectives 1 and 2. The measures would not impact on the definitions of disability by Member States, which would retain the power to determine disability status in accordance with their own assessment criteria and procedures enshrined in their national law. Policy option B2 would not affect Member States’ power to determine the parking rights granted to cardholders at the national level. It would only require common rules on the model and the security format and features of the EU parking card, justified by the need to ensure full recognition of the card across Member States.

For the legal bases described in section 3.1, the ordinary legislative procedure applies. Therefore, the preferred instrument is a Directive, as it is the common instrument to the legal bases concerned.

One in one out

The expected administrative costs for businesses will be marginal. Having one recognisable card would save administrative time used for informing staff about the rules on the acceptance of such cards, as well as regards handling complaints of persons with disabilities whose national disability card is not recognised abroad.

Based on the evidence available, the European Disability Card does not bear a high cost on service providers who have so far voluntarily participated in the pilot scheme. In contrast, it appears that service providers have high economic and social returns due to their participation as they attract new customers and gain positive publicity. Possible, although limited, costs could arise from training their staff to recognise the Card and from monitoring the use of the card. Businesses might need to bear the costs of reduced income (e.g. museums that will charge reduced fees, or parking fees not collected from non-national holders of the European Disability Card). However it is not expected that the share of non-national disability card holders in the total number of people benefiting from similar discounts will be important enough to have a noticeable negative impact on the concerned businesses, and the initiative is expected to entice more persons with disabilities to travel (jointly with friends and family), thus raising the overall return for concerned businesses.

Persons with disabilites are expected to benefit from the initiative, which will decrease uncertainty as to whether their disability cards/certificates would be recognised and they would get access to preferential conditions. They will have direct monetary benefits from preferential conditions and reduced risk of having to pay fines for lack of recognition of the European Parking Card or having to pay for a parking spot.

9.HOW WOULD ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?

A monitoring framework has been designed with a view to tracking progress towards achieving the objectives. It includes a series of core indicators related to the objectives of the initiative. These and the related data sources are summarised in Annex 7, table 2.

The monitoring framework will be subject to further adjustment according to the final legal and implementation requirements and timeline. The initiative could be evaluated 5 years after it enters into force in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines. This would take into account an eighteen-month period of transposition by Member States, allow sufficient time to evaluate effects on national administrations and service providers, which may need some time to adapt to the new rules.

Annex 1: Procedural information

Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references

DG EMPL, Unit D3, has a lead for the Impact Assessment on the European Disability Card. An impact assessment was validated in the Decide Planning under reference PLAN/2022/1525.

Work Programme reference: COM(2022) 548 final

The Call for Evidence was published in November 2022. The Public Consultation was published in February 2023 and finished on 5 May 2023.

Organisation and timing

The impact assessment on the European Disability Card was coordinated by an Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG) managed by the Secretariat General, which was established in 2022. Representatives from Secretariat General; DG for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion; Legal Service, DG for Mobility and Transport; DG for Competition; DG for Justice and Consumers; DG EAC; DG ARGI; DG for the Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs; DG Communications Networks, Content and Technology; the European External Action Service; DG for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations; DG for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union; were appointed to the Steering Group.

In total, 7 meetings of the ISSG were organised to discuss this impact assessment (on 20 July and 12 October 2022, 12 January, 12 May, 9 June, 19 June and 24 July 2023. The ISSG has in addition been consulted in writing on interim report and first draft of the final report of the Study supporting the impact assessment during Q1-2 2023.

The Impact Assessment was assessed by the ISSG in two meetings: on 9 June and on 19 June 2023.

Consultation of the RSB

The draft impact assessment report was reviewed by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) on 18 July 2023. The RSB delivered a positive opinion with reservations on 19 July 2023. The revisions introduced in response to the RSB opinion are summarised in the table below.

Evidence, sources and quality

The impact assessment is based on several sources, using both quantitative and qualitative data, collected from Member States, organisations of persons with disabilities, civil society. This includes:

·Contracted Study supporting the impact assessment carried out by an external, independent consultant;

·Stakeholder consultation activities (see Annex 2);

·The Commission’s experience in monitoring and implementing the rights of persons with disabilities;

·Assessment of the previous pilot project on the EU Disability Card: “Study assessing the implementation of the pilot action on the EU Disability Card and associated benefits”. 144

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation (Synopsis report)

INTRODUCTION

This synopsis report outlines the consultations that were organised as part of the work on the initiative on the European Disability Card (EDC) and the European parking card and presents their main findings in support of the impact assessment.

CONSULTATION STRATEGY

Objectives

The objective of the consultations was to collect factual evidence and views concerning possible problems and necessary measures related to the free movement and mobility of persons with disabilities in the EU to support the preparation of the EDC initiative.

In particular, the consultation aimed to: (1) gather service providers’ and the general public’s views on the initiative; (2) collect opinions and evidence on the problem and various solutions (policy options) to address it; and (3) create a robust and evidence-based analysis.

Four key problem areas subject to the analysis are: (1) In the EU, around 85 million persons 16+ have some form of disability. They still face barriers to their full participation in society; (2) Persons with disabilities face hurdles that may prevent or deter them from moving freely, especially because there is no mutual recognition of disability status among Member States; (3) This lack of mutual recognition of the disability status (national disability cards / certificates) may create barriers in relation to access to preferential conditions for persons with disabilities provided by some services during their travel across borders; and (4) Differing formats of the European parking card hinder its recognition in other Member States.

Stakeholders

Across these four topics, a wide range of stakeholders operating at the international, EU and national levels were consulted: (i) those having an interest in the matter (e.g., national public authorities, service providers, NGOs): (ii) potential beneficiaries of EDC and/or European Parking Card (e.g., persons with disabilities, personal assistants); and (iii) experts (e.g., researchers, consultancies and advisors, international organisations).

Consultation methods

The stakeholder consultation included: (a) a public consultation, (b) strategic and (c) targeted interviews (10 interviews), (d) six targeted online surveys, (e) three online workshops, (f) six focus groups and (g) six case studies. Stakeholders could send comments on the Commission’s (h) Call for evidence. Majority of the consultation activities were organised by an external contractor in the context of a study supporting the preparation of the impact assessment. The Commission also consulted Member States’ authorities and CSO representing persons with disabilities, which are members of the Disability Platform. The discussions through meetings and its specific sub-group on EDC were key to obtain feedback for its fine tuning.

The Commission’s minimum consultation standards have been met.

Table A2.1: Overview of the stakeholders reached through each consultation tool/method

OVERVIEW OF CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES

The call for evidence was open for consultation for four weeks from 23 November 2022 to 9 January 2023 with the aim of gathering the views of relevant stakeholders on the Commiss’on's understanding of the problem and possible solutions and to share any relevant information that they may have on the initiative. It received 272 replies from different groups of stakeholders 145 , including EU citizens (188), CSOs (49), companies (8), public authorities (7), business associations (5), trade unions (2), non-EU citizens (2) and consumer organisations (1). Respondents were from 19 Member States: Belgium (77 replies), Germany (47) France (30), Italy (22) Spain (20), Finland (9), Ireland (8), the Netherlands (7), Austria (7), Poland (6), Slovakia (5) Portugal (5), Lithuania (4), Estonia (4), Sweden (3), Luxembourg (3), Greece (3), Romania (2), and Cyprus (2). In addition to the EU Member States, there were replies from the UK (3) and Switzerland (1).

Public consultation was open for 12 weeks from 16 February 2023 until 5 May 2023 to ensure that the impact assessment and the proposal for a European Disability Card well reflects the general public views from a wide range of stakeholders across the EU. In particular, the consultation aimed to: (i) gather service providers’ and the general public’s views on the initiative, (ii) collect opinions and evidence on the problem and various solutions (policy options) to address it, (iii) and create a robust and evidence-based analysis. The standard questionnaire received 1204 responses. It received 3361 replies – in three different formats to ensure accessibility: (1) Standard questionnaire online via Have your Say: 1204 replies; (2) Easy-to-read format online via EU Survey: 2135 replies; (3) Accessible Word document via email: 22 replies. Across all the stakeholders’ categories, the majority (78%) of respondents were persons with disabilities (2632), most of them with a recognised disability (1932 respondents: 760 in the standard questionnaire + 12 in the accessible word documents + 1160 in the easy-to-read version). Responses were received from all EU Member States.

Strategic interviews at the beginning of the study explored the current EU legislation and policy context, legislation, and policy initiatives in the field of disability, discussed the implementation of past EU initiatives (EU Disability Card pilot, European parking card for persons with disabilities), as well as the feasibility to introduce a mandatory EDC in all Member States. They were conducted with representatives of the Commission’s Directorates-General for Justice and Consumers (DG JUST) and for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE).

Ten targeted interviews were conducted with three EU bodies, two EU-level CSOs, two EU parking associations and an expert in the field of disability. The aim was to collect further evidence on gaps and issues affecting the exercise of free movement rights of persons with disabilities travelling for short-term stays in the EU, as well as stakeholders’ opinions on the EDC initiative. The interviews were conducted online via Teams, based on tailored guidelines.

An online survey ran from 25 January 2023 to 19 February 2023 146 . The purpose was (i) collect information on if and how preferential conditions are offered to residents and non-residents with disabilities accessing services in the Member States; (ii) understand the main problems at stake at both the EU and the national levels; as well as (iii) collect inputs on possible policy options. Six different survey questionnaires were used, targeted respectively (i) national competent authorities (NCAs): 25 replies from 15 Member States 147 , (ii) persons with disabilities: 24 replies from 4 Member States 148 , (iii) national CSOs: 23 replies from 11 Member States 149 , (iv) EU-level Civil Society Organisations (CSOs): 10 replies 150 , (v) other national public authorities: 5 replies from 3 Member States 151 , and (vi) EU-level service providers associations and their national members: 2 replies from 2 Member States 152 . An additional online survey was launched from 16-26 April 2023, due to the low number of service providers replying to the first online survey. This second questionnaire targeted 607 service providers in all Member States and was focused on costs and benefits linked with the introduction of the EDC. In total, 23 responses were received from service providers operating in 13 Member States 153  in the following sectors: Cultural Services (6), Public Transport (3), Amusement Parks (3), Private Transport (1), Parking (1), Travel Agencies (1), Services in the Field of Tourism (1), Sports Centres (1), and other services 154 (6). Most of the respondents reported high-level administrative roles in their organizations (e.g., managers, directors, secretary generals etc.). The responses received are uniformly distributed with respect to the size of the firms: 6 Micro (1 to 9 employees), 5 Small (10 to 49 employees), 5 Medium (50 to 249 employees) and 7 Large (250 or more).

As concerns the low response rate to the online surveys, the contractor together with the European Commission made efforts to obtain replies from as many stakeholders as possible to the surveys. The contractor sent reminders and the Commission also sent reminders to encourage the stakeholders to take part in the surveys. Unfortunately, the response rate remained low. That is a particular issue for the transport sector, where the relevant stakeholders, including the main umbrella organisations were reached out to, however, apart from 3 public transport providers and 1 private transport provider from Austria, Germany and Romania, did not react.

During the study, three online workshops were organised. The aim was to share and validate preliminary results from the study and to discuss (i) the problems that affect the exercise of free movement rights for persons with disabilities in the EU, (ii) possible EU measures to address the identified problems and (iii) the likely impacts of these possible EU measures in terms of both positive and negative effects. The workshops consisted of a (i) plenary session to present the identified problems, the policy objectives, and the list of identified policy measures; (ii) break-out sessions with open questions and polls (section 3.4) addressed and discussed with smaller groups of participants; and (iii) second plenary session to discuss the outcomes of the break-out sessions. The three workshops involved respectively 11 EU and national CSOs (22 March 2023), 29 national public authorities that are members of the EU Disability Platform (23 March 2023), and 18 national service providers (11 May 2023).

Originally, the consultation strategy included six focus groups with services providers from selected Member States (i.e., Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Italy, and Romania), with the aim to collect information on the likely impacts stemming from the adoption of the EDC, including potential costs of offering preferential conditions to persons with disabilities from other Member States. However, only service providers from Romania finally participated in a focus group held online on 27 April 2023 in Romanian. It involved 14 service providers from sectors i.e., transport (9 public sector and 1 private sector); culture (3); and sports (1). As mitigation measure to low number of responses received to the focus group with service providers a workshop with service providers from all Member States was organised.

Six case studies were performed on Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Italy, and Romania to present different models and experiences on the implementation of the European parking card and to draw lessons and recommendations to improve its functioning. As part of the case studies, semi-structured 1h-interviews were conducted online via Teams with: (i) Seven public authorities responsible for the European parking card’s entitlement, issuance, and delivery, either at local or national level in five Member States (AT, BE, FR, IT, RO); (ii) Seven CSOs representing or advocating the rights of persons with disabilities in five Member States (AT, BE, FI, FR, IT); and (iii) Four parking associations in four Member States (BE, FI, FR, IT). The interview minutes were shared with the interviewees for review and to enable them to share any additional information.

RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES

CALL FOR EVIDENCE

Problems

Problems were mainly raised by EU citizens and CSOs. Lack of mutual recognition of disability status limits recognition and acceptance of the national disability cards abroad and it is a great effort and time expenditure for persons with disabilities to plan travels (17 CSOs, 6 EU Citizens, 2 Other) and to use the card for accessing benefits, getting assistance and, more generally, enjoying their rights abroad (33 EU Citizens, 15 CSOs).

Policy options

Regarding the scope, the majority of respondents were in favour of an EDC that (i) is mutually recognised across the EU (97 EU Citizens, 20 CSOs, 1 SME, 1 Other); and (ii) provides for access to same preferential conditions already granted by Member States to residents with disabilities, regardless of the areas or services (21 EU Citizens, 20 CSOs, 7 Other).

Regarding the card’s design, respondents proposed the following features: (i) Double format, plastic and digital, including a QR Code; (ii) A common pictogram, including the logo of the related disability type to make stakeholders aware about specific needs (e.g., for cochlear implant users, captioning, speech-to-text); and (iii) a relief structure in the form of a scannable embossed alpha numerical information (as braille printing). 155

To further enhance the implementation and use of EDC, respondents proposed the establishment of the following mechanisms:

-An EU database/website to be fed by the national authorities responsible for defining the eligibility criteria to receive the card and for issuing it, collecting information on the number of eligible persons and cards released and recording cases of fraudulent use of the card (23 CSOs, 3 PAs, 1 EU Citizen and 1 SME).

-An EU-wide control system and an EU authority to oversee and monitor compliance with the EDC rules, working with national authorities to ensure proper implementation of the EDC by all the Member States and stakeholders (14 CSOs, 2 PAs, 1 EU Citizen, 1 Other).

-An EU-wide awareness-raising campaign to inform all the stakeholders involved (i.e., users, service providers, national authorities, general public) about the card, its features and benefits (16 CSOs, 1 EU Citizen, 1 PA, 1 SME).

Importantly, some respondents claimed that the EDC should be introduced through a binding legislation, preferably a regulation, to avoid differences in implementation of the EDC at national level (24 CSOs, 1 EU Citizens, 1 PA, 4 Other).

Impacts

On one side, respondents welcomed the initiative, emphasising that the adoption of a mutually recognised EDC will (i) facilitate the freedom of movement for persons with disabilities in the EU, also making easier travelling in EU (92 EU Citizens, 43 CSOs, 15 Other); (ii) improve the independence and living conditions of persons with disabilities and their families (28 EU Citizens, 12 CSOs, 3 PAs, 2 SMEs); and (iii) promote inclusion and more equal opportunities for persons with disabilities.

On the other side, respondents pointed out some concerns about costs incurred by service providers with respect to (i) investments into infrastructure, technologies, people and skills, depending on the type of disability (6 CSOs, 2 EU Citizens, 5 Other); and (ii) Handling of sensitive customers data (11 CSOs and 4 EU Citizens,).

PUBLIC CONSULTATION (by stakeholders groups)

When reading the main results of this consultation, it is important to note that the total number of respondents varies across the questions highlighted. The reason is because the easy-to-read questionnaire comprised fewer and more simplified questions than the standard one and elicited more responses. To help you navigate this report:

·Total number of respondents is clarified in each question.

·When the questions referred to were included in the easy-to-read version, the total number of respondents is: 2526 citizens, 245 NGO, 114 public authorities, 134 companies, 133 academic institutions, 22 non-EU citizens and 1932 persons with disabilities across categories.

When the questions referred to were not included in the easy-to-read version, the total number of respondents is: 1009 citizens, 71 NGO, 33 public authorities, 26 companies, 23 academic institutions, 22 non-EU citizens and 772 persons with disabilities across categories (respondents from the standard questionnaire + accessible word docs.)

Users and Representative organisations

Problems

The majority (75% EU citizens, 73% Persons with disabilities, 77% NGO, 68% non-EU citizens) of respondents claimed that the lack of mutual recognition of disability status in the EU represents an obstacle for Persons with disabilities to exercise their free movement rights. According to half of representatives from NGOs (38 of 71), Persons with disabilities are discouraged from travelling because their disability status is not recognised.48% Persons with disabilities stated their disability status is not recognised across Member States. 33% Persons with disabilities PwDspecified that their disability card is not accepted when they travel across the EU.

Regarding the factors perceived to highly hinder the free movement of Persons with disabilities in the EU:

I.Lack of publicly available information on preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities (77% EU citizens, 75% of Persons with disabilities, 87% NGO, 82% non-EU citizens)

II.Limited provision of preferential conditions offered by certain services to non-residents (65% EU citizens, 66% Persons with disabilities, 78% NGO, 90% non-EU citizens)

III.Different treatment of non-residents with disabilities compared to residents with disabilities (67% EU citizens, 66% Persons with disabilities, 78% NGO, 73% non-EU citizens)

European Parking Card

The majority of respondents pointed out that the implementation of the European parking card for Persons with disabilities is significantly hindered by (1) Its limited mutual recognition across the Member States: (65% EU citizens, 62% Persons with disabilities, 70% NGO), and (2) National differences in terms of conditions attached to the card (e.g., validity period, conditions for priority parking, etc.): (60% EU citizens, 58% Persons with disabilities, 58% NGO, 59% non-EU citizens). Specifically, 22% 156  Persons with disabilities highlighted they have problems when they use their European parking card.

EU added value

Almost all respondents that claimed that the EU action is needed to: (1) Facilitating mutual recognition of disability in the EU (94% EU citizens, 91% Persons with disabilities, 93% NGO, 90% non-EU citizens); (2) Facilitating access to those services offering preferential conditions to Persons with disabilities (93% EU citizens, 91% Persons with disabilities, 86% NGO, 90% non-EU citizens); (3) Improving the implementation of the European Parking Card for Persons with disabilities (88% EU citizens, 83% Persons with disabilities, 83% NGO, 82% non-EU citizens).

Policy options

Most respondents think that the European Disability Card should be binding for all Member States, without the possibility of opting out (87% EU citizens, 87% Persons with disabilities, 85% NGO, 77% non-EU citizens, 100% consumer organisations 157 ). The majority think that the European Parking Card should be incorporated into the new European Disability Card (82% EU citizens, 82% Persons with disabilities, 98% NGO 158 , 82% non-EU citizens, 88% consumer organisations). Most stated that the European Disability Card should have the form of both plastic and electronic (mobile phone application): 68% EU citizens, 69% Persons with disabilities, 98% NGO 159 , 68% non-EU citizens, 59% consumer organisations). According to the vast majority of respondents, the main sectors that should be included in the European Disability Card are public transport (1821 of 3361), cultural activities (1566 of 3361) and parking (1534 of 3361).

Impacts

The majority (average of 85% and 100% of consumer organisations 160 ) think that the introduction of the European Disability Card would have a strong impact on:

-Increasing access to services offering preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities when travelling in the EU (85% EU citizens, 84% Persons with disabilities, 85% NGO, 91% non-EU citizens).

-Simplifying mutual recognition of preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities (85% EU citizens, 84% Persons with disabilities, 90% NGO, 82% non-EU citizens).

-Increasing the take up of cultural, leisure, sports, and travel services of Persons with disabilities when travelling across the EU (85% EU citizens, 84% Persons with disabilities, 86% NGO, 91% non-EU citizens).

-Increasing the opportunity for Persons with disabilities to exercise fully their right of travelling across the EU (84% EU citizens, 82% Persons with disabilities, 83% NGO, 91% non-EU citizens).

Most respondents (average of 75% and 2 of 3 consumer organisations) think that EDC will also have a strong impact on (1) increasing the frequency of travel of Persons with disabilities in the EU (68% EU citizens, 67% Persons with disabilities, 77% NGO, 91% non-EU citizens); and (2) increasing the number of Persons with disabilities travelling in the EU (67% EU citizens, 67% Persons with disabilities, 72% NGO, 86% non-EU citizens).

Overall, respondents think that the introduction of European Disability Card would have no impact on (1) regulatory charges, e.g., fees, levies, and taxes, etc. (52% EU citizens, 53% Persons with disabilities, 61% NGO, 46% non-EU citizens, 1 of 3 consumer organisations); and (2) indirect costs, e.g., price increases for the general public for services targeted by the card (53% EU citizens, 53% Persons with disabilities, 74% NGO, 41% non-EU citizens, 2 of 3 consumer organisations);

Most respondents think that the costs entailed by the European Disability Card would affect the following stakeholders only from a small to a medium extent:

-Member States’ public administrations, e.g., on costs related to the delivery of the Card (72% EU citizens, 70% Persons with disabilities, 79% NGO, 69% non-EU citizens, 3 of 3 consumer organisations);

-Large companies e.g., on costs related to the provision of preferential conditions to EU tourists with disabilities (71% EU citizens, 70% Persons with disabilities, 65% NGO, 59% non-EU citizens, 2 of 3 consumer organisations).

-SMEs e.g., on costs related to the provision of preferential conditions to EU tourists with disabilities (70% EU citizens, 69% Persons with disabilities, 70% NGO, 2 of 3 consumer organisations).

-Public authorities offering preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities (68% EU citizens, 66% Persons with disabilities, 72% NGO, 59% non-EU citizens, 2 of 3 consumer organisations).

-Civil society organisations, e.g., on costs related to the provision of support in using the Card-to-Card holders with particular needs (34% EU citizens, 33% Persons with disabilities, 31% NGO, 64% non-EU citizens, 1 of 3 consumer organisations).

-Cultural venues and institutions (66% EU citizens, 64% Persons with disabilities, 72% NGO, 50% non-EU citizens, 2 of 3 consumer organisations)

Public authorities

Problems

The majority (72%) of respondents claimed that the lack of mutual recognition of disability status in the EU represents an obstacle for persons with disabilities to exercise their free movement rights. Regarding the factors perceived to highly hinder the free movement of persons with disabilities in the EU: 73% stated the lack of publicly available information on preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities; 60% stated different treatment of non-residents with disabilities compared to residents with disabilities; 58% stated limited provision of preferential conditions offered by certain services to non-residents.

European Parking Card

Half of respondents pointed out that the implementation of the European parking card for persons with disabilities is significantly hindered by (1) Its limited mutual recognition across the Member States; and (2) National differences in terms of conditions attached to the card.

EU added value

The majority of respondents that claimed that the EU action is needed to: (1) Facilitating mutual recognition of disability in the EU (82%); (2) Facilitating access to those services offering preferential conditions to persons with disabilities (67%); (3) Improving the implementation of the European Parking Card for Persons with disabilities (79%).

Policy options

The majority (73%) think that the European Disability Card should be binding for all Member States, without the possibility of opting out. 69% think that the European Parking Card should be incorporated into the new European Disability Card. Most (71%) stated that the European Disability Card should have the form of both plastic and electronic (mobile phone application).

Impacts

Most respondents (almost 70%) think that the introduction of the European Disability Card would have a strong impact on:

-Increasing access to services offering preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities when travelling in the EU (61%).

-Simplifying mutual recognition of preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities (70%).

-Increasing the take up of cultural, leisure, sports, and travel services of Persons with disabilities when travelling across the EU (61%).

-Increasing the opportunity for Persons with disabilities to exercise fully their right of travelling across the EU (67%).

Half of respondents think that EC will have a strong impact on increasing the number of Persons with disabilities travelling in the EU (52%). Other respondents think that EC will strongly increase the frequency of travel of Persons with disabilities in the EU (36%). 64% respondents think that the introduction of European Disability Card would have no impact on (1) regulatory charges, e.g., fees, levies, and taxes, etc.; and (2) indirect costs, e.g., price increases for the general public for services targeted by the card.

Most respondents think that the costs entailed by the European Disability Card would affect the following stakeholders only from a small to a medium extent:

-Member States’ public administrations, e.g., on costs related to the delivery of the Card (57%).

-Large companies e.g., on costs related to the provision of preferential conditions to EU tourists with disabilities (76%).

-SMEs e.g., on costs related to the provision of preferential conditions to EU tourists with disabilities (76%).

-Public authorities offering preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities (57%).

-Civil society organisations, e.g., on costs related to the provision of support in using the Card-to-Card holders with particular needs (45%).

-Cultural venues and institutions (73%)

Service providers

Problems

65% companies claimed that the lack of mutual recognition of disability status in the EU represents an obstacle for persons with disabilities to exercise their free movement rights.

EU added value

More than half of respondents that claimed that the EU action is needed to: (1) Facilitating mutual recognition of disability in the EU (65%); (2) Facilitating access to those services offering preferential conditions to persons with disabilities (58%); (3) Improving the implementation of the

European Parking Card for Persons with disabilities (62%).

Policy options

The majority (73%) think that the European Disability Card should be binding for all Member States, without the possibility of opting out. 68% 161 think that the European Parking Card should be incorporated into the new European Disability Card. Most (88%) stated that the European Disability Card should have the form of both plastic and electronic (mobile phone application).

Impacts

More than half of the respondents think that the introduction of the European Disability Card would have a strong impact on:

-Increasing access to services offering preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities when travelling in the EU (58%).

-Simplifying mutual recognition of preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities (62%).

-Increasing the take up of cultural, leisure, sports, and travel services of Persons with disabilities when travelling across the EU (54%).

-Increasing the opportunity for Persons with disabilities to exercise fully their right of travelling across the EU (69%).

Half of respondents think that EDC will strongly increase the frequency of travel of Persons with disabilities in the EU, and the number of Persons with disabilities travelling in the EU. Several respondents think that the introduction of European Disability Card would have no impact on (1) regulatory charges, e.g., fees, levies, and taxes, etc. (54%); and (2) indirect costs, e.g., price increases for the general public for services targeted by the card (69%)

Most respondents think that the costs entailed by the European Disability Card would affect the following stakeholders only from a small to a medium extent:

-Member States’ public administrations, e.g., on costs related to the delivery of the Card (69%).

-Large companies e.g., on costs related to the provision of preferential conditions to EU tourists with disabilities (77%).

-SMEs e.g., on costs related to the provision of preferential conditions to EU tourists with disabilities (77%).

-Public authorities offering preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities (62%).

-Civil society organisations, e.g., on costs related to the provision of support in using the Card-to-Card holders with particular needs (35%).

-Cultural venues and institutions (69%)

Academic and research institutions

Problems

The majority (78%) of respondents claimed that the lack of mutual recognition of disability status in the EU represents an obstacle for Persons with disabilities to exercise their free movement rights.

Regarding the factors perceived to highly hinder the free movement of Persons with disabilities in the EU:

I.Lack of publicly available information on preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities (74%)

II.Different treatment of non-residents with disabilities compared to residents with disabilities (70%)

III.Limited provision of preferential conditions offered by certain services to non-residents (70%)

European Parking Card

The majority of respondents pointed out that the implementation of the European parking card for Persons with disabilities is significantly hindered by its limited mutual recognition across the Member States (70%).

EU added value

Almost all respondents that claimed that the EU action is needed to: (1) Facilitating mutual recognition of disability in the EU (91%); (2) Facilitating access to those services offering preferential conditions to Persons with disabilities (96%); (3) Improving the implementation of the European Parking Card for Persons with disabilities (83%).

Policy options

Most respondents think that the European Disability Card should be binding for all Member States, without the possibility of opting out (87%), that the European Parking Card should be incorporated into the new European Disability Card (85%) and that the European Disability Card should have the form of both plastic and electronic (70%).

Impacts

Most respondents think that the introduction of the European Disability Card would have a strong impact on:

-Increasing access to services offering preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities when travelling in the EU (74%).

-Simplifying mutual recognition of preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities (83%).

-Increasing the take up of cultural, leisure, sports, and travel services of Persons with disabilities when travelling across the EU (65%).

-Increasing the opportunity for Persons with disabilities to exercise fully their right of travelling across the EU (78%).

Half of respondents think that EDC will also have a strong impact on (1) increasing the frequency of travel of Persons with disabilities in the EU; and (2) increasing the number of Persons with disabilities travelling in the EU. Almost 60% of respondents think that the introduction of European Disability Card would have no impact on (1) regulatory charges, e.g., fees, levies, and taxes, etc.; and (2) indirect costs, e.g., price increases for the general public for services targeted by the card.

Most respondents think that the costs entailed by the European Disability Card would affect the following stakeholders only from a small to a medium extent:

-Member States’ public administrations, e.g., on costs related to the delivery of the Card (70%)

-Large companies e.g., on costs related to the provision of preferential conditions to EU tourists with disabilities (70%)

-SMEs e.g., on costs related to the provision of preferential conditions to EU tourists with disabilities (70%)

-Public authorities offering preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities (65%).

-Civil society organisations, e.g., on costs related to the provision of support in using the Card-to-Card holders with particular needs (44%).

-Cultural venues and institutions (78%)

Trade unions

EU added value

All respondents (4 of 4 162 ) claimed that the EU action is needed to: (1) Facilitating mutual recognition of disability in the EU; (2) Facilitating access to those services offering preferential conditions to Persons with disabilities; and (3) Improving the implementation of the European Parking Card for Persons with disabilities.

Policy options

67% of respondents think that the European Parking Card should be incorporated into the new European Disability Card. 62% think that the European Disability Card should have the form of both plastic and electronic.

Impacts

All respondents (4 of 4 163 ) think that the introduction of the European Disability Card would have a strong impact on:  (1) Increasing access to services offering preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities when travelling in the EU; (2) Simplifying mutual recognition of preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities; (3) Increasing the take up of cultural, leisure, sports, and travel services of Persons with disabilities when travelling across the EU; (4) Increasing the opportunity for Persons with disabilities to exercise fully their right of travelling across the EU.

Half of respondents (2 of 4) 164 think that EDC will also have a strong impact on increasing the frequency of travel of Persons with disabilities in the EU. 3 of 4 respondents that will strongly increase the number of Persons with disabilities travelling in the EU. 3 of 4 respondents think that the introduction of European Disability Card would have no impact on regulatory charges, e.g., fees, levies, and taxes, etc. Half of respondents that it will have no impact on indirect costs, e.g., price increases for the general public for services targeted by the card.

Half of respondents (2 of 4) think that the costs entailed by the European Disability Card would affect the following stakeholders only from a small to a medium extent to Member States’ public administrations, (e.g., on costs related to the delivery of the Card; Large companies e.g., on costs related to the provision of preferential conditions to EU tourists with disabilities; SMEs e.g., on costs related to the provision of preferential conditions to EU tourists with disabilities; and Public authorities offering preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities. 1 of 4 respondents think that it will only affect from a small to a medium extent to Civil society organisations, e.g., on costs related to the provision of support in using the Card-to-Card holders with particular needs; and Cultural venues and institutions.

Main conclusions

Problems

The majority of academic institutions (78%), NGOs (77%), users 165 and public authorities (72% both) agreed that the lack of mutual recognition of disability status in the EU represents an obstacle for Persons with disabilities to exercise their free movement rights. Only service providers (65%) and non-EU citizens (68%) agreed a bit below the average.

Users and NGOs agreed the most that the factors perceived to highly hinder the free movement of Persons with disabilities in the EU are: (1) Lack of publicly available information on preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities (87% NGOs, 78% users); (2) Limited provision of preferential conditions (78% NGOs, 74% users) offered by certain services to non-residents; and (3) Different treatment of non-residents with disabilities compared to residents with disabilities (78% NGOs, 69% users). Academic/research institutions agreed in a 71%, and public authorities in a 64%.

European Parking Card

Most users, CSOs and academic institutions (63%) pointed out that the implementation of the European parking card for Persons with disabilities is significantly hindered by (1) Its limited mutual recognition across the Member States; and (2) National differences in terms of conditions attached to the card (e.g., validity period, conditions for priority parking, etc.). Half of public authorities agreed with this.

EU added value

Almost all users, CSOs and academic institutions agreed that the EU action is needed to: (1) Facilitating mutual recognition of disability in the EU (92%); (2) Facilitating access to those services offering preferential conditions to Persons with disabilities (91%); (3) Improving the implementation of the European Parking Card for Persons with disabilities (84%).

The majority of public authorities (82%) agreed that the EU action is needed to facilitate mutual recognition of disability in the EU; most of them (79%) that is needed for improving the implementation of the European Parking Card; and 67% agreed that is needed for facilitating access to those services offering preferential conditions to Persons with disabilities.

63% of service providers agreed that the EU action is needed for those three actions; specially for facilitating mutual recognition of disability (65%); for improving the implementation of the European Parking Card (62%); and facilitating access to those services offering preferential conditions (58%).

Policy options

All consumer organisations 166 , and most of users, CSOs and academic institutions (87%) think that the EDC should be binding for all Member States, without the possibility of opting out. Public authorities and service providers agreed in a 73%.

98% of NGOs, 88% consumer organisations and 82% of users think that the European Parking Card should be incorporated into the new European Disability Card. Public authorities and service providers agreed in a 68%.

98% NGO 167 , 88% service providers and 71% public authorities stated that the European Disability Card should have the form of both plastic and electronic (mobile phone application). Users agreed in a 68%.

According to the vast majority of respondents, the main sectors that should be included in the European Disability Card are public transport (18021 of 3361), cultural activities (1566 of 3361) and parking (1534 of 3361).

Impacts

The majority of stakeholders agreed that the introduction of EDC would have the strongest impact on simplifying mutual recognition of preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities (85% users and NGOs; 83 academic institutions; 70% public authorities.)

Service providers think that the strongest impact will be for increasing the opportunity for Persons with disabilities to exercise fully their right of travelling across the EU (69%). Users and NGOs agreed in an 85%. For academic institutions (78%), and public authorities (67%) this would be the 2nd strongest impact.

For users and NGOs (86%) the 2nd strongest impact would be in the increasing the take up of cultural, leisure, sports, and travel services of Persons with disabilities when travelling across the EU. Academic institutions agreed in an 65%; Public authorities in an 61% and service providers in an 54%.

For users and NGOs (85%) and academic institutions (74%) EDC will as well strongly increase access to services offering preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities when travelling in the EU. Public authorities agreed in a 61%; service providers in a 58%.

75% of users and NGOs think that EDC will also have a strong impact on (1) increasing the frequency of travel of Persons with disabilities in the EU; and (2) increasing the number of Persons with disabilities travelling in the EU. Half of public authorities and service providers agreed with the impact on the frequency of travel, but only 36% of public authorities agreed with the increasing of number of Persons with disabilities travelling.

Overall, respondents think that the introduction of EDC would have no impact on (1) regulatory charges, e.g., fees, levies, and taxes, etc. (77% NGOs, 64% public authorities; 61% service providers; 53% users); and (2) indirect costs, e.g., price increases for the general public for services targeted by the card (74% NGOs, 64% public authorities, 69% service providers; 53% users).

Most respondents think that the costs entailed by the European Disability Card would affect, only from a small to a medium extent, to SMEs (72%), large companies (71%), Cultural venues and institutions (70%), Member States’ public administrations (69%), Public authorities offering preferential conditions for Persons with disabilities (64%) and NGOs (40%).

Public authorities (76%) and service providers (77%) agreed that SMEs and large companies will be the most affected, but only from a small to a medium extent. NGOs (79%) and users (70%) think that it will be the Member States’s public administrations. Academic institutions (78%) think that it will be the cultural venues and institutions.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION (by area of questions)

Problems

The majority of respondents claimed that the lack of mutual recognition of disability status in the EU represents an obstacle for persons with disabilities to exercise their free movement rights (754 of 1009 EU citizens, 55 of 71 NGOs, 24 of 33 public authorities, 17 of 26 companies, 18 of 23 academic/research institutions, 15 of 22 non-EU citizens, and 559 of 772 persons with disabilities across all categories).

354 of 772 persons with disabilities stated their disability status is not recognised across Member States. Moreover, 377 of 1160 PwDspecified that their disability card is not accepted when they travel across the EU.

In particular, the following factors were mentioned as being perceived to highly hinder the free movement of persons with disabilities in the EU:

IV.Lack of publicly available information on preferential conditions for persons with disabilities (593 of 772 Persons with disabilities across all categories) 168

V.Different treatment of non-residents with disabilities compared to residents with disabilities (510 of 772 Persons with disabilities across all categories) 169 .

VI.Limited provision of preferential conditions offered by certain services to non-residents (505 of 772 Persons with disabilities across all categories) 170

Moreover, according to half of representatives from NGOs (38 of 71), persons with disabilities are discouraged from travelling because their disability status is not recognised.

European Parking Card

The majority of respondents (the share is lower for public authorities) pointed out that the implementation of the European parking card for persons with disabilities is significantly hindered by:

-Its limited mutual recognition across the Member States: (482 of 772 Persons with disabilities responding across all categories) 171 :

-National differences in terms of conditions attached to the card (e.g., validity period, conditions for priority parking, etc.): (453 of 772 Persons with disabilities across all categories) 172 .

Specifically, 140 of 650 173  persons with disabilities highlighted they have problems when they use their European parking card.

The necessity and added value of a possible EU action

The majority of respondents claimed that EU action is needed for:

-Facilitating mutual recognition of disability in the EU: 945 of 1009 EU citizens, 66 of 71 NGOs, 27 of 33 public authorities, 17 of 26 companies/businesses/business associations, 21 of 23 academia/research institutions, 20 non-EU citizens and 4 of 4 trade unions, and 705 of 772 Persons with disabilities across all categories.

-Facilitating access to those services offering preferential conditions to persons with disabilities: 935 of 1009 EU citizens, 616 of 71 NGOs, 22 of 33 public authorities, 15 of 26 companies/business associations, 20 of 23 academia/research institutions, 20 non-EU citizens and 4 of 4 trade unions, and 702 of 772 Persons with disabilities across all categories.

-Improving the implementation of the European Parking Card for persons with disabilities: 844 of 1009 EU citizens, 59 of 71 NGOs, 26 of 33 public authorities, 16 of 26 companies/businesses/business associations, 19 of 23 academia/research institutions, 18 non-EU citizens and 4 of 4 trade unions, and 639 of 772 Persons with disabilities across all categories..

Policy options

Most respondents think that the European Disability Card should be binding for all Member States, without the possibility of opting out: 874 of 1009 EU citizens, 60 of 71 NGOs, 24 of 33 public authorities, 19 of 26 companies/business associations, 20 of 23 academia/research institutions, 17 non-EU citizens, 3 consumer organisations, and 669 of 769 persons with disabilities across all categories;

Also, most respondents think that the European Parking Card should be incorporated into the new European Disability Card: 2083 of 2526 EU citizens, 192 of 195 174 NGOs, 78 of 114 public authorities, 107 of 112 175 companies/business associations, 113 of 133 academia/research institutions, 18 of 22 non-EU citizens, 14 of 21 trade unions, 15 of 17 consumer organisations, and 1592 of 1932 persons with disabilities across all categories.

The majority stated that the European Disability Card should have the form of both plastic and electronic (mobile phone application) card: 1724 of 2526 EU citizens, 191 of 195 176 NGOs, 81 of 114 public authorities, 99 of 112 177 companies/business associations, 93 of 133 academia/research institutions, 15 of 22 non-EU citizens, 13 of 21 trade unions, 10 of 17 consumer organisations, and 1333 of 1932 Persons with disabilities across all categories. .

According to the vast majority of respondents, the main sectors that should be included in the European Disability Card are public transport (18021 of 3361), cultural activities (1566 of 3361) and parking (1534 of 3361).

Impacts

Overall, respondents think that the introduction of the European Disability Card would have a strong impact on:

-Increasing access to services offering preferential conditions for persons with disabilities when travelling in the EU (860 of 1009 EU citizens, 60 of 71 NGOs, 20 of 33 public authorities, 15 of 26 companies/businesses/business associations, 17 of 23 academic/research institutions, 20 of 22 non-EU citizens, 4 of 4 trade unions, 3 of 3 consumer organisations, and 650 of 772 persons with disabilities across all categories).

-Simplifying mutual recognition of preferential conditions for persons with disabilities (861 of 1009 EU citizens, 64 of 71 NGOs, 23 of 33 public authorities, 16 of 26 companies/businesses/business associations, 19 of 23 academic/research institutions, 18 of 22 non-EU citizens, 4 of 4 trade unions, 3 of 3 consumer organisations, and 652 of 772persons with disabilities across all categories).

-Increasing the take up of cultural, leisure, sports, and travel services of persons with disabilities when travelling across the EU (856 of 1009 EU citizens, 61 of 71 NGOs, 20 of 33 public authorities, 14 of 26 companies/businesses/business associations, 15 of 23 academic/research institutions, 20 of 22 non-EU citizens, 4 of 4 trade unions, 3 of 3 consumer organisations, and 650 of 772persons with disabilities across all categories).

-Increasing the opportunity for persons with disabilities to exercise fully their right of travelling across the EU (846 of 1009 EU citizens, 59 of 71 NGOs, 22 of 33 public authorities, 18 of 26 companies/businesses/business associations, 18 of 23 academic/research institutions, 20 of 22 non-EU citizens, 4 of 4 trade unions, 3 of 3 consumer organisations, and 634 of 772 persons with disabilities across all categories).

-Increasing the frequency of travel of persons with disabilities in the EU (687 of 1009 EU citizens, 55 of 71 NGOs, 12 of 33 public authorities, 13 of 26 companies/businesses/business associations, 12 of 23 academic/research institutions, 20 of 22 non-EU citizens, 2 of 4 trade unions, 2 of 3 consumer organisations, and 518 of 772  persons with disabilities across all categories); and

-Increasing the number of persons with disabilities travelling in the EU (679 of 1009 EU citizens, 51 of 71 NGOs, 17 of 33 public authorities, 14 of 26 companies/businesses/business associations, 13 of 23 academic/research institutions, 19 of 22 non-EU citizens, 3 of 4 trade unions, 2 of 3 consumer organisations, and 519 of 772 persons with disabilities across all categories).

Overall, respondents think that the introduction of European Disability Card would have no impact on (1) regulatory charges, e.g., fees, levies, and taxes, etc. (528 of 1009 EU citizens, 43 of 71 NGOs, 21 of 33 public authorities, 14 of 26 companies/businesses/business associations, 13 of 23 academic/research institutions, 10 of 22 non-EU citizens, 3 of 4 trade unions, 1 of 3 consumer organisations, and 408 of 772 persons with disabilities), and (2) indirect costs, e.g., price increases for the general public for services targeted by the card (535 of 1009 EU citizens, 45 of 71 NGOs, 21 of 33 public authorities, 18 of 26 companies/businesses/business associations, 14 of 23 academic/research institutions, 9 of 22 non-EU citizens, 2 of 4 trade unions, 2 of 3 consumer organisations, and 410 of 772 persons with disabilities across all categories).

Most respondents think that the costs entailed by the European Disability Card would affect the following stakeholders only from a small to a medium extent:

-Member States’ public administrations, e.g., on costs related to the delivery of the Card (725 of 1009 EU citizens, 56 of 71 NGOs, 19 of 33 public authorities, 18 of 26 companies/businesses/business associations, 16 of 23 academic/research institutions, 15 of 22 non-EU citizens, 2 of 4 trade unions, 3 of 3 consumer organisations, and 539 of 772 persons with disabilities across all categories).

-Large companies e.g., on costs related to the provision of preferential conditions to EU tourists with disabilities (719 of 1009 EU citizens, 46 of 71 NGOs, 25 of 33 public authorities, 20 of 26 companies/businesses/business associations, 16 of 23 academic/research institutions, 13 of 22 non-EU citizens, 2 of 4 trade unions, 2 of 3 consumer organisations, and 543 of 772 persons with disabilities across all categories).

-SMEs e.g., on costs related to the provision of preferential conditions to EU tourists with disabilities (710 of 1009 EU citizens, 50 of 71 NGOs, 25 of 33 public authorities, 20 of 26 companies/businesses/business associations, 16 of 23 academic/research institutions, 16 of 22 non-EU citizens, 2 of 4 trade unions, 2 of 3 consumer organisations, and 534 of 772 persons with disabilities across all categories, respectively).

-Public authorities offering preferential conditions for persons with disabilities (687 of 1009 EU citizens, 51 of 71 NGOs, 19 of 33 public authorities, 16 of 26 companies/businesses/business associations, 15 of 23 academic/research institutions, 14 of 22 non-EU citizens, 2 of 4 trade unions, 2 of 3 consumer organisations, and 508 of 772  persons with disabilities across all categories).

-Civil society organisations, e.g., on costs related to the provision of support in using the Card-to-Card holders with particular needs (340 of 1009 EU citizens, 22 of 71 NGOs, 15 of 33 public authorities, 9 of 26 companies/businesses/business associations, 10 of 23 academic/research institutions, 6 of 22 non-EU citizens, 1 of 4 trade unions, 1 of 3 consumer organisations, and 255 of 772 persons with disabilities across all categories).

-Cultural venues and institutions (670 of 1009 EU citizens, 51 of 71 NGOs, 24 of 33 public authorities, 18 of 26 companies/businesses/business associations, 18 of 23 academic/research institutions, 11 of 22 non-EU citizens, 1 of 4 trade unions, 2 of 3 consumer organisations, and 496 of 772 persons with disabilities across all categories).

STRATEGIC INTERVIEWS

The key concerns discussed during the strategic interviews were:

-Identifying the EU legal basis to justify the EDC: in particular, whether it should be based either on Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 178 on the right of EU citizens to move and reside freely within the EU territory or on Article 56 TFEU on the freedom to provide services within the EU (in case of services for remuneration). For that, the envisaged EU intervention should be supported by

oevidence of the problems faced by persons with disabilities, and possibly magnitude thereof, whether they are mainly related to free movement or not

oquestioning whether the services in the scope of the EDC are for remuneration or not.

-Addressing extra cost and concerns for transport service providers: The application of EDC to access preferential conditions in the transport sector for persons with disabilities, might produce concerns and costs for transport service providers when they are requested to extend preferential conditions also to non-nationals with disabilities. These costs and concerns need to be carefully considered.

-Tackle fraud at local level when using European parking card for persons with disabilities, specifically, frauds relate to persons who e.g., cheated to demonstrate the disability status or that use the card of another person when they are not entitled to hold the Card. Therefore, some mechanisms should be introduced to prevent fraudulent activities and to ensure that cardholders genuinely hold the card based on their recognised disability status.

TARGETED INTERVIEWS

Problems

The target interviews provided consistency to the results compiled with the larger consultation activities planned (call for evidence and public consultation). In this sense, again, the lack of mutual recognition of national disability cards and related consequences are the main concern for 3 of 3 EU bodies, two of 3 EU CSOs and one academic expert. Among them, one EU body and one EU CSO highlighted that persons with disabilities are discouraged to travel for short-term stays as they are unsure regarding whether, and what type of, preferential conditions will be available to them in the host Member State. Then, one of 3 EU body and one academic expert stated that limited access to services offering preferential conditions for non-residents with disabilities de facto represents an obstacle to the exercise of their free movement rights and the right to receive services in the EU.

Moreover, in consistence with the strategic interviews, one of two EU Parking association claimed that the problem of frauds and forgeries of the European parking card have a strong impact on the right of persons with disabilities to easily access different premises, as persons using fake European parking card take away the spaces reserved for persons with disabilities. Moreover, the lack of cross-national database on parking cards’ design or on parking cards’ holders prevents a proper monitoring, as enforcers in charge of checking the validity of the European parking card are not always aware of how a real European parking card looks like. The progress of technology exposes the European parking cards to more and more sophisticated frauds and forgeries. Hence, the current paper format needs an update.

The necessity and added value of a possible EU action

The majority of stakeholders’ (three of three EU bodies, two of three EU CSOs and one academic expert) considered that the action at the EU level is necessary, with introduction of a system of mutual recognition of disability status in the EU by means of an EU Disability Card (EDC). Moreover, the two EU parking associations agreed on updating the parking card with digital components is a key aspect of the initiative, and an area where the EU can bring added value with very concrete solutions.

Policy options

In terms of policy options for the EDC, there was less support, comparing when consulting to persons with disabilities, to make it mandatory for all services, while service providers could choose the type of preferential conditions to offer. This was supported by the disability expert, and one interviewee from the EU CSOs and from the EU body.

On the European parking card, there was a call not to merge the EDC with the European parking card by interviewees from the EU CSOs and disability expert. In addition, the importance of a fraud-proof European parking card and a database solution that would link vehicle to a European parking card was highlighted by the disability expert, and one interviewee from the EU CSOs and from the EU body.

ONLINE SURVEYS

Problems

20 out of 24 Persons with disabilities and 10 of 25 NCAs stated that the proof of disability is normally needed to get access to preferential conditions.  According to 20 out of 25 NCAs, 17 out of 23 national CSOs and nine out of 10 EU-level CSOs, national disability cards and certificates are not always recognised in other Member States which represents an obstacle for persons with disabilities to exercise their free movement rights and to access preferential conditions when using certain services abroad.

When preferential conditions are not offered, the costs of travelling sustained by persons with disability increase to a large extent (19 NCAs, 14 national CSOs, 11 persons with disabilities, 9 EU-level CSOs, and 3 other relevant public authorities).

As concerns the European parking card, some NCAs (13), persons with disabilities (11). national CSOs (9), EU-level CSOs (6), and other public authorities (2) consider that the correct implementation of the European parking card is hindered by its limited recognition across the Member States. Several stakeholders’ groups (NCAs, national CSOs and EU level CSOs) pointed out that the card’s mutual recognition across the Member States is hindered by national differences in validity period of the card, card design and rights granted by the card. 

The necessity and added value of a possible EU action

The majority of respondents (22 NCAs, 22 national CSOs, 21 persons with disabilities, 10 EU-level CSOs and 3 other relevant public authorities) argued that the EU intervention would have particularly added value compared to what individual countries could do towards facilitating mutual recognition of disability status among Member States. In their view, an EU intervention would be necessary to:

·Facilitate access to services offering preferential conditions for persons with disabilities in all the Member States (23 NCAs, 21 national CSOs, 22 persons with disabilities, 9 EU-level CSOs).

·Ensure that persons with disabilities are offered the same preferential conditions as residents of the country to which they travel to (22 NCAs, 22 national CSOs, 20 persons with disabilities, 10 EU-level CSOs and 3 other relevant public authorities).

·Improve the implementation of the European parking card for persons with disabilities (22 persons with disabilities, 21 NCAs, 21 national CSOs, 8 EU-level CSOs and 4 other relevant public authorities).

Policy options

The majority of respondents support the introduction of a binding EDC in all the Member States (24 out of 24 persons with disabilities, 19 out of 23 national CSOs and 18 out of 25 NCAs). The majority of respondents claimed that:

-The EDC should have both an electronic and a plastic format (17 national CSOs, 16 NCAs, 12 persons with disabilities, eight EU-level CSOs and four other relevant public authorities).

-The holders of a national disability card or certificate should be automatically entitled to the EDC (23 national CSOs, 22 persons with disabilities and 22 NCAs).

-Specific security features shall be added on the card (e.g., holograms, QR code, barcode, etc.) to prevent forgery and fraud of the EDC (22 NCAs, 21 national CSOs, 10 EU-level CSOs and 4 other relevant public authorities).

-A common EU platform where users can get information on the preferential conditions and services offered in each Member State (22 persons with disabilities, 22 NCAs, 22 national CSOs and 4 other relevant public authorities).

-An EU-wide awareness-raising campaign to inform relevant stakeholders about the card, its features, and benefits (22 national CSOs, 21 NCAs, 10 EU-level CSOs and 4 other relevant public authorities).

The majority of persons with disabilities and national CSOs (15 out of 24 persons with disabilities, 15 out of 23 national CSOs) believe that the eligibility criteria to receive the European parking card and the EDC should be the same. As to the merging of the European parking card with the new EDC, 16 persons with disabilities think that the two cards shall be merged, whilst 11 NCAs and 3 EU-level CSOs representatives believe that the two cards shall be kept separate.

Impacts

The majority of respondents believe that the EDC would facilitate (i) the exercise of free movement (22 NCAs, 21 national CSOs and 4 other relevant public authorities); (ii) the right to receive preferential conditions when accessing certain services (23 NCAs, 21 national CSOs and 4 other relevant public authorities).

Indeed, it is expected that the EDC would increase: (i) the number of persons with disabilities travelling in the EU and (ii) the frequency of travelling (21 NCAs, 21 national CSOs, 4 EU-level CSOs and 4 other relevant public authorities); (iii) the length of staying abroad (22 national CSOs, 15 NCAs, 3 EU-level CSOs and 3 other relevant public authorities,); (iv) the number of persons with disabilities using certain services when travelling to other Member States (20 NCAs, 18 national CSOs 3 EU-level CSOs and 3 other relevant public authorities,); (v) the take up by persons with disabilities of cultural, leisure, sports, and travel services (23 NCAs, 22 national CSOs, 9 EU-level CSOs and 4 other relevant public authorities).

As concerns the cost entailed by the EDC, most service providers (7) highlighted that the introduction of the EDC will not bring significant change in the costs related to recruiting additional or specialised staff; or keeping track of the number of customers with disabilities accessing preferential conditions with the EDC (8 service providers). However, about half of respondents (12) consider that there will be a small increase in the cost of training staff for the provision of personalised services.

Overall, the majority of service providers (18) stated that the cost of offering preferential conditions to persons with disabilities would be relatively low. Moreover, the 23 service providers responding to the survey agreed that such costs are offset and even exceeded by the returns in terms of service providers’ visibility, reputation, attracting new customers and other benefits.

As concerns the European parking card, according to the majority of respondents, specific security features (e.g., holograms, QR codes, barcodes, etc.) shall be added to the EU-model with the aim to tackling (i) forgeries (19 national CSOs, 16 NCAs, 7 EU-level CSOs and 2 other PAs) and (ii) frauds (15 national CSOs, 13 NCAs, 6 EU-level CSOs and 3 other PAs).

In terms of the efficiency of the European parking cards, although some NCAs and other public authorities claim that the European parking card entails costs for national authorities in charge of managing and issuing the card in the Member States (11 of 25 NCAs and 3 of 5 PA) 179 the majority of respondents believes that the benefits linked with the adoption of the European parking card have overcome the related costs.

To conclude, public authorities and CSOs have divergent opinions regarding the costs of merging the EDC and the European parking card. More specifically, in case the two cards are merged NCAs, and other relevant public authorities expect:

-A slight increase in indirect costs i.e., the final price for the general public to use services covered by the card would be higher (9 NCAs).

-A decrease in costs related to the issuance of the Card e.g., managing application procedures, producing the cards, delivering the cards (11 NCAs and 5 other relevant public authorities).

-A decrease in costs related to the monitoring (e.g., keep track of the number of cards issued) (9 NCAs) and reporting (e.g., storing information concerning the card use) its implementation (7 NCAs).

-A decrease in enforcement costs e.g., inspections, handling complaints, forgery controls (4 other relevant public authorities).

WORKSHOPS

Problems

Participants in the workshop (seven of 11 CSOs and 17 of 19 NCAs representatives think that differences in terms of format and features of national disability cards and certificates contribute to the limited recognition of disability status across the Member States, particularly in the case of invisible disabilities (one CSO). Importantly, six national service providers complained that they are not familiar with all national disability certificates issued above, hence they often end up not to accept them, particularly when information is provided in foreign languages.

Seven out of eight CSOs and 12 out of 20 NCAs representatives think that persons with disabilities are discouraged from travelling abroad as a consequence of the limited recognition of the national disability cards or certificates across the Member States. 180 Likewise, they think that persons with disabilities are discouraged from travelling abroad because they have no certainty regarding their access to preferential conditions offered across the Member States.

Seven out of eight CSOs and 14 out of 19 NCAs representatives find that national differences in terms of design and functioning of the European parking card hinder its mutual recognition across the Member States. Due to the limited recognition of their European parking card abroad, persons with disabilities feel discouraged from travelling abroad (five out of six CSO and 17 out of 20 NCAS).

Policy options

Participants in the workshops stated that the EDC should include common security features, which would prevent fraudulent use of the card (3 of 11 CSO and 1 of 29 NCA). As for the format, the majority of participants in the workshops argued that the EDC should be available both in digital (including a QR Code) and physical (i.e., plastic) format.  181

Participants (8 of 11 CSO and 3 of 29 NCAs) argued that the introduction of the EDC should be accompanied by the establishment of an accessible and easy-to-read EU database/website about the (i) number of EDC released, (ii) number of persons entitled to obtain the EDC, (iii) notices about cases of fraudulent use of the EDC, (iv) number and type of service provider offering preferential conditions, (v) practical details regarding where to get and use the EDC as a resource to support the card and its effective implementation, provided that information included in the website is verified (e.g. if the providers are indeed providing preferential conditions and in an accessible way) and frequently updated (1 of 11 CSO and 1 of 29 NCA). Moreover, the uptake and use of the EDC should be supported by an EU-wide awareness-raising campaign, (6 NCAs and three CSO) as well as by an EU-wide control system/authority in charge of monitoring and coordinating the EDC implementation across the Member States (6 of 29 NCAs and 4 of 11 CSO).

Finally, as concerns the European parking card, six out of seven CSOs and six out of 11 NCAs representatives participants in the workshops agreed that to avoid fraud and forgery and address new ways of controlling parking rights an update of Council Recommendation 98/376/EC (notably its Annex I) would be necessary.

Impacts

Participants in the three workshops strongly agreed on the introduction of a common model EDC that would enable its mutual recognition by public authorities and service providers across the EU (10 of 29 NCAs and 4 of 11 CSO). Indeed, participants believe that the obligation for the Member States to grant the same preferential conditions to all EU citizens with disabilities will have a positive impact on the free movement of persons with disabilities in the EU (16 of 16 NCA and 7 of 7 CSO). Overall impacts would be even greater in case the mandatory provision of preferential conditions is extended to personal assistants of persons with disabilities. 182 Also, four of 20 service providers remarked that introduction of a common EDC will contribute to reduce costs and burdens associated with the assessment of different national disability cards in circulation.

The totality of NCAs representatives (29 of 29) and most of CSO (8 of 11) think that the European parking card should not be merged with the new EDC. In this regard, participants argued that having just one card, would be complicated. The card should be left in the car for its use as a parking card, while it could also be necessary as proof of disability to be shown to the service provider in order to get preferential conditions e.g., in a museum (3 of 11 CSO and 1 of 29 NCA). Another argument against merging the two cards is the difference in eligibility criteria (3 of 11 CSO and 1 of 29 NCA), as persons eligible for the parking card are not always the same as those eligible for the EDC. In case the two cards are merged, a single authority would be in charge of managing a significant increased number of persons entitled to get the card, and delivery procedures may be lengthened (1 of 29 NCA).

FOCUS GROUPS

Overall, participants highlighted that the lack of mutual recognition of disability status in the EU generates significant administrative burdens related to the assessment of the validity of the different national disability cards. Yet, participating service providers were very positive about the permanent introduction of the EDC, stating that it would eliminate administrative barriers to mutual recognition and increase access of persons with disabilities to services.

According to participants, the EDC would reduce the additional costs and administrative burdens faced by service providers when offering preferential conditions to non-residents with disabilities. Moreover, participants also agree that offering preferential conditions to persons with disabilities from other Member States would improve the reputation of their organisation. Finally, all the participating service providers remarked the necessity to organise EU-wide awareness-raising campaign, in all EU languages, with the aim to inform service providers and to promote the use of the EDC across the EU.

CASE STUDIES

Problems

Interviewees pointed out that, at national level, misuses of the European parking card still happen regularly, in particular frauds and forgeries. Moreover, at local/regional level, there are different parking and traffic rights granted to cardholders, and lack of information about these different conditions, which often results in fines received by persons with disabilities assuming they could use their card as they do in their municipality/region. Indeed, according to CSOs, the lack of information on the different rules related to the parking card and advantages granted to cardholders in the different Member States is a significant issue also at cross-border level, which often leads to uncertainty and undue fines.

Policy options

Some recommendations to improve the use of the European parking card were provided, among which:

-Improving the parking card model with digital features (e.g., hologram, QR code) to address the fraud and forgery and to allow the recognition by the car plates scan or at the park meter.

-Establishing national databases of parking card holders to check the validity of the cards and making them interoperable at EU-level to facilitate cross-border checks.

-Establishing an EU-wide, uniformly accessible website where users can find the rights associated with their parking card in each Member State.

Finally, there was unanimity in the fact that EDC should not be merged with the EU parking card, as the scope of the two instruments is too diverse. Only one parking association representative interviewed was in favour of merging them if a common database of card holders will be accessible for parking rights controllers.

SUMMARY OVERVIEW OF RESULTS FOR KEY IA ELEMENTS

PROBLEMS

The European Commission bases its initiative on two problems (i) lack of mutual recognition of disability status as depriving persons with disabilities of an important facilitation of free movement and concerning (ii) the fraudulent actions in the use of the European parking card. 

There was clear consensus amongst all stakeholders (i.e Persons with disabilities, EU level stakeholders, national authorities, CSOs, service providers) consulted trough different consultation activities (i.e., online survey, public consultation, targeted interviews, workshops) that national disability cards are not always accepted when persons with disabilities travel across Member States.

Consulted stakeholders across stakeholders’ groups largely agree on a discouragement from travel due to the lack of access to preferential conditions for services and thus an increase of costs for travelling for persons with disabilities. In addition, through the Call for evidence, and later reaffirmed in the targeted interviews and the workshop, the lack of information on the preferential conditions available in the host country was identified as well as an obstacle for travelling of persons with disabilities, as they feel discouraged because of the uncertainty.

The focus group further identified significant administrative burdens related to assessment of the validity of the different national disability cards. In that sense, participating service providers were very positive about the introduction of EDC, stating that it would eliminate these administrative barriers and would increase access of persons with disabilities to services.

Regarding the European Parking Card, consulted stakeholders across all categories largely agreed that the current situation where different formats, designs and rules are provided for its implementation of at national, regional, and local level, hinder mutual recognition and increase the risk for fraudulent actions. The lack of a cross-national database causes that enforcers in charge of checking the validity of the European parking card are not always aware of how a real European parking card looks like. The public consultation and the online surveys additionally show that the differences in the validity period of the European parking cards also create concerns about the mutual recognition of the cards.

THE NECESSITY AND ADDED VALUE OF A POSSIBLE EU ACTION

The perception of the need for EU action and the EU added value was positive overall among the range of stakeholders consulted on both the implementation of EDC and the European Parking Card. Particularly, respondents to the online survey from all the consulted categories (i.e. Persons with disabilities, NCA, CSOs and service providers) agreed that EU intervention would have particularly added value compared to what individual countries could do towards facilitating mutual recognition of disability status among Member States.

In that sense stakeholders across all consultation activities consider that EDC will facilitate the mutual recognition of disability status among EU Member States. In addition, through most of the consultation activities (public consultation, online surveys, targeted interviews, and focus group) the action at the EU level is likely to contribute to facilitating the access to services offering preferential conditions to persons with disabilities.

There was clear consensus amongst all stakeholders consulted (i.e., persons with disabilities, EU-level stakeholders, NCAs and other public authorities, EU-level and national CSOs, companies/business associations and trade unions) that the key added value of action at EU level would be improving the implementation of the European Parking card for persons with disabilities.

POLICY OPTIONS

The majority of consulted stakeholders support a binding legal instrument for the European Disability Card. Especially participants of the public consultation suggested no option for opting out. In addition, during the online survey, Persons with Disabilities, CSOs, and NCAs identified, that the holders of a national disability card or certificate should be automatically entitled to the EDC. However, there was a less positive view by the targeted interviews on the binding character of the EDC, while service providers could choose the type of preferential conditions to offer.

The online survey, the workshops and the case studies identified the need of including specific security features on the card to prevent its fraudulent use. Furthermore, there is an overall consensus through stakeholders (evidenced in the call for evidence, online surveys, and workshops) that a digital and physical format of the card is needed.

There was a wide consensus by national and EU-Level CSOs, NCAs, and other relevant public authorities on accompanying measures such as an (i) awareness raising campaign, (ii) an EU platform with info of preferential conditions and services offered in each Member State. Some NCAs and CSOs supported an EU-wide control system/authority to monitor the EDC implementation.

Finally, there is a clear dichotomy on merging the European parking card with the new EDC. On one side, there is an overall consensus across ‘institutional’ stakeholders (all case studies, EU-level CSOs, NCAs) that the European parking card should not be merged with the new EDC. However, the majority of respondents, from all stakeholder categories to the public consultation, as the tool showing the most the interests of EU-citizens with disabilities, agreed that the European parking card should be incorporated into the new EDC.

IMPACTS

First, there is a clear consensus among stakeholders consulted through the different consultation activities on welcoming the EDC initiative, emphasising that the adoption of a mutually recognised EDC will facilitate (i) the freedom of movement for persons with disabilities in the EU and (ii) the right to receive preferential conditions when accessing certain services. Moreover, stakeholders agreed (specially EU citizens, NCA and CSO through the public consultation and the online surveys) that EDC would increase: (iii) the number of persons with disabilities travelling in the EU and those using certain services; (iv) the frequency and length of staying abroad; (v) and the take up by persons with disabilities of cultural, leisure, sports, and travel services.

On the other side, a key concern identified is related with the costs incurred by the implementation of the EDC. Overall, the majority of service providers stated that the cost of offering preferential conditions to persons with disabilities would be relatively low. As well, all respondents of the online surveys agreed that such costs are offset and even exceeded by the returns in terms of service providers’ visibility, reputation, attracting new customers and other benefits.

Regarding specific costs, service providers (online surveys) highlighted (i) cost of training staff; CSOs (call for evidence) highlighted the (ii) investments into infrastructure, technologies, people, and skills; and (iii) handling of sensitive customers data; and according to the strategic interviews, special attention should be put on the extra cost for (iv) service providers on transport, when they are requested to extend preferential conditions also to non-nationals with disabilities. Overall respondents in the public consultation think that EDC would have no impact on regulatory charges, e.g., fees, levies, and taxes, and indirect costs e.g., price increases for the general public for services targeted by the card.In terms of the efficiency of the European parking cards, although some NCAs and other public authorities claim that the European parking card entails costs for national authorities in charge of managing and issuing the card the majority of respondents in the online surveys believes that the benefits linked with the adoption of the European parking card have overcome the related costs. To conclude, public authorities and CSOs have divergent opinions regarding the costs of merging the EDC and the European parking card.

Finally, most respondents of the public consultation agreed that the costs entailed by EDC would affect the following stakeholders by a small to a medium extent: (1) Member States’ public administrations and public authorities offering preferential conditions for persons with disabilities (17 of 29 public authorities) (2) Large companies and SMEs (19 of 25 companies, 2 of 4 trade unions, 2 of 3 consumer organisations) (3) Civil society organisations (20 of 66 NGOs), and (6) Cultural venues and institutions (50 of 66 NGO, 21 of 29 public authorities, 2 of 3 consumer organisations).

CONSULTATION WITH AND POSITIONS OF MEMBER STATES

Disability Platform and its Sub-group on European Disability Card

The initiative and the state of play of its implementation was presented in each meeting of the Disability Platform in 2022-2023. The Disability Platform is an advisory group of the European Commission in the area of disability, composed by representatives of Member States and civil society.

In addition, the Sub-group on European Disability Card was created and met twice on 20 May 2022 and 15 May 2023, when the state of play was discussed and Member States and civil society could express their opinions on particular issues. It includes 11 Member States (CY, CZ, EL, DK, HU, IT, MT, NL, PL, PT, SI) and four organisations representing persons with disabilities (Autism Europe, European Blind Union, European Disability Forum, European Union of the Deaf).

Since the adoption of the Commission Work programme 2023 in October 2022, the Commission in its presentations and discussions in the meetings below made clear the legislative nature of the initiative.

Positions of Member States

Meeting of the Social Protection Committee in Stockholm on 3 April 2023

The European Disability Card initiative was one point on the agenda:

The Commission presented the building blocks of the forthcoming proposal and the preliminary results of the ongoing consultations and invited a discussion, in particular on the potential scope of the European Disability Card, its possible digitalisation, as well as potential for integration with the EU parking card.

In the ensuing discussion, several delegations shared their positive experience with the pilot project, launched in 2018.  The early involvement of civil society organisations and other stakeholders in the development of the card was pointed out as a key success factor.

All intervening 16 Member States supported the introduction of the card. The majority expressed a preference for retaining the scope of the Card to the areas already covered by the pilot project (leisure, culture, sport and transport). One Member State is in favour of limiting the scope by excluding transport.  Some indicated a level of flexibility in expanding the scope to other elements (services) that enable the inclusion of persons with disabilities, and emphasised a strong preference for voluntary participation of the service providers, as well as expressing some cost-related concerns. Several Member States indicated they would not support the expansion of the scope to the provision of benefits in social security.             

There was consensus among all of the intervening 16 Member States that the EU Disability and EU Parking Cards should be kept separate and that both physical and digital cards should be issued to the card beneficiaries, to ensure equal access and limit the impact of the digital gap for certain users.  Several Member States emphasise the need for proper oversight to avoid possible abuse, and raised the issue of data protection.

Meeting with Member States organised by Finland on 17 May 2023

On 17 May 2023 Finland, which is taking part in the pilot EU Disability Card and has expressed a strong interest in the initiative, organised a meeting of Member States to discuss the initiative. The meeting conclusions made by Finland highlight that the EDC initiative is warmly welcomed. Recommendations include careful planning of the extension of the services covered, no merger of the parking card for persons with disabilities with the EDC into a single card, and no coverage of social security and healthcare benefits. Member States’ positions expressed during the meeting are described in more detailed below.

Position papers of Member States

Seven Member States and one region have so far submitted a position paper (Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Sweden and Bavaria), all of them supportive of an EU legislative initiative.

Denmark:

·Focus on facilitating access to preferential conditions and discounts for people with disabilities on short-term stays in other Member States, within the areas of culture, leisure, sport and transport.

·No harmonisation or common disability definition at EU level, assessing and granting disability status remains a national competence.

·Well-defined and limited scope that respects national competences and the principle of subsidiarity.

·No inclusion of education, housing, employment, social security and social protection, and benefits and services that require pre-authorisation or demand more thorough assessments of the specific individual’s needs.

·Voluntary application for the card by persons with disbailities and service providers should be able to decide freely on the range of preferential conditions and discounts they offer to people with disabilities, including cardholders.

·Format - physical and supplementary digital version. The Commission should develop and make mutually recognised digital version of the card available.

·Separate European Disability and EU parking card.

·Careful consideration to be paid to financial costs and administrative burdens imposed on Member States and businesses. Member States to decide if the card should be free of charge.

·No obligation for public subsidies to cover potential extra costs of businesses.

·Data collection limited to the operation of the EU Disability Card.

Finland:

·An EU-wide Disability Card can positively impact on the equality and inclusion of persons with disabilities when they travel from one Member State to another; on raising awareness of the rights of persons with disabilities, including among service providers

·Scope: transport, culture, leisure and sport.

·The implementation, use and legal coverage of the card and the criteria for issuing it should be defined at national level in line with the piloted model.

·Voluntary application for the card by persons with disabilities.

·National competence – disability assessment and definition.

·To involve persons with disabilities and disability organisations in the development of the Disability Card at all stages.

·Accessibility of the card and of information on the card and on how it can be used in different countries.

·Easy application for the card.

·Format: plastic form and digital application. Digital card to be compatible with other EU-level digital solutions; attention to be paid to protection and the secure processing of data.

·Separate EU parking card and European Disability Card.

France:

·The definition and mutual recognition of disability status is a national competence together with disability assessment

·FR welcome the EDC initiative for

oPromoting freedom of movement and equal treatment for Persons with disabilities when accessing to culture, leisure, sport and transport.

oBetter reconciliation among national and EU objectives and concretization of EU values promoting equality for vulnerable population

oEncouraging rights granted at national level, as these would apply to all national and EU citizens

·Since 2017, FR has three types of disability cards: “stationement” (Parking Card), “priorité” (people with less than 80% of disability, with priority access to transport and queues), and “invalidité” (people with minimum of 80% disability, receiving invalidity pension, similar to the “priorité” card with some additional reductions in transports and tax benefits.)

·FR support to have only one card, including the national disability card and the future EDC

oThis card would be issued by Member States or local authorities

oCommon graphic format and security system at EU level

oThat can be used at national and EU level

·Having a EDC different from the national disability card would

oforce Persons with disabilities to make an additional effort to get the EDC

oreserve the rights of the EDC only to those who had sufficiently anticipated their trip

obe seen as a regression for Persons with disabilities who can currently use their national card in other Member States

omake difficult to prohibit the use of the EDC to nationals in their own Member States, thereby making it unnecessary to possess national card which would carry the same rights.

·The European Parking Card must be kept separated from EDC

·The EDC must distinguish two categories of beneficiaries:

oPersons with disabilities that needs someone accompanying to get around. Then, e.g., in public transport the accompanying person does not have to pay the ticket.

oPersons with disabilities that can travel alone and then e.g., they cannot be accompanied free of charge