Constitutional Court Rules Traffic Vulnerable Persons Act Regulation Unconstitutional for Not Considering Disabled Using 'Bed-Type Wheelchairs'

Provisional Application of Constitutional Incompatibility Decision Until the End of 2014

Constitutional Court Grand Bench. [Photo by Constitutional Court]

The Constitutional Court has ruled that while special transportation means for people with disabilities include safety standards for 'standard wheelchairs' used while sitting, the failure to establish separate standards for 'bed-type wheelchairs' used by severely disabled bedridden individuals violates the right to equality and is unconstitutional.

However, to prevent a legal vacuum that could arise from a simple declaration of unconstitutionality, the Court issued a decision of constitutional inconsistency, maintaining the current law's effect until it is amended.

On the 25th, the Constitutional Court unanimously decided to provisionally apply a ruling of constitutional inconsistency regarding the part of the Enforcement Rules of the Act on the Promotion of Convenience for Transportation Vulnerable Persons (Transportation Vulnerable Persons Act) that sets the 'safety standards for wheelchair securing devices.'

The Court stated that the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, who holds administrative legislative authority, will continue to apply the current provisions until improved legislation is enacted by December 31, 2024. If the National Assembly does not amend the law by then, the challenged provisions will lose their effect.

The petitioner’s mother, who filed this constitutional complaint, is a person with a severe brain lesion disability who can only use a long bed-type wheelchair rather than a standard wheelchair used while sitting.

The petitioner argued, "The Transportation Vulnerable Persons Act does not have regulations related to boarding facilities for disabled persons who cannot use wheelchairs, which infringes on the right to equality," and filed the constitutional complaint in October 2019.

The current Enforcement Rules of the Transportation Vulnerable Persons Act explicitly specify safety equipment standards for special transportation means, but only for standard wheelchairs used while sitting.

In April 2020, Seoul City also introduced a 'bedridden-type (bed-type) disabled call taxi' for disabled persons using bed-type wheelchairs, but operation was suspended due to the lack of safety standards.

The Court pointed out, "The challenged provisions set safety standards for wheelchair securing devices in special transportation means for transportation vulnerable persons based only on standard wheelchairs, so disabled persons who cannot use standard wheelchairs cannot use special transportation means that meet safety standards," and added, "Disabled persons who can only use bed-type wheelchairs have such severe disabilities that they are practically unable to move without specially equipped vehicles."

Furthermore, the Court stated, "Nevertheless, setting safety standards for securing devices based solely on standard wheelchairs without considering disabled persons who cannot use them is unreasonable, and it is difficult to see this as the state properly fulfilling its obligation to promote research and development projects for wheelchair boarding facilities installed in special transportation means."

The Court acknowledged, "While newly establishing safety standards for wheelchair securing devices and mandating their installation may impose some financial burden, it cannot be considered excessively severe."

It concluded, "Therefore, the challenged provisions violate the petitioner’s right to equality by treating disabled persons who can use standard wheelchairs and those who cannot differently without reasonable grounds."

Meanwhile, although the petitioner also claimed a violation of the right to mobility, the Court stated, "Since the challenged provisions set safety standards for securing devices based only on standard wheelchairs, which causes unreasonable discrimination, a separate judgment on the right to mobility is unnecessary."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.