‘Disability Authority Law’ Caring for people with special needs is a duty, not a favor

The Civil Court of Cassation, under the leadership of Counselor Dr. Obaid Al-Ajmi, recently upheld the provisions of the Disability Authority Law No. 8 of 2010, affirming that the law mandates the provision of in-kind benefits and monthly allowances to individuals with disabilities.

The court emphasized that the care and support of persons with special needs should not be viewed as an act of charity or pity but as a societal responsibility and a state obligation. This ruling reinforces the government’s duty to ensure that disabled citizens receive the financial and social support they are entitled to under the law.

In its landmark ruling, the Civil Court of Cassation stated that the Disability Authority is required to stop financial allocations only in two cases: if the disabled person recovers or if they no longer qualify for the benefit, and the administration cannot exceed these conditions or violate the provisions of the law.

The lawsuit was filed by a citizen against the Disability Authority, seeking to compel the Authority to pay over 12,000 dinars that had been refused. The payment was due to the plaintiff’s daughter, who continues to suffer from both mental and physical disabilities. The plaintiff argued that the Authority is obligated to fulfill this payment, as the daughter’s condition still qualifies her for the financial support under the law.

In his statement, the plaintiff explained that his daughter has suffered from a moderate disability since birth, and a certificate confirming her condition was issued by the Public Authority for Persons with Disabilities.

Since the law was issued and its provisions were in effect in May 2010 and disability benefits were disbursed, he was surprised that the disbursement was stopped during the period requested.

The lawsuit was filed and the court ruled in his favor that he was entitled to the amounts requested, but the Court of Appeal overturned the “first instance” ruling and decided to reject the lawsuit.

Whereas the plaintiff complains that the appealed judgment violates the law, is wrong in its application and interpretation, is corrupt in its reasoning, and contradicts what is proven in the papers.

In explaining this, he stated that the appealed judgment ruled to reject the lawsuit for not presenting his daughter to the medical committee within three years, despite the fact that the medical committee of the Public Authority for the Disabled had previously issued his daughter a disability certificate on 5/6/2014 proving that she has a moderate and permanent dual motor and physical disability.

The plaintiff argued that his daughter has acquired a legal status that cannot be altered as long as her disability remains unchanged due to medical progress or other factors, which was not the case. He pointed out that the necessary documentation was lacking, particularly since she was examined after the benefits were stopped and her condition had not improved.

The plaintiff argued that the text of paragraph nine of Article 26 of the executive regulations of Law 2010/8 does not apply to his daughter. This paragraph stipulates that the disbursement of allowances should be stopped in the event of recovery or if the case no longer qualifies under the concept of disability.

The plaintiff asserted that his daughter is entitled to all the benefits that the Authority had stopped disbursing. He argued that if the appealed judgment contradicts this view, it is flawed and should therefore be annulled.

Monthly Allowance

The Court of Cassation stated that the objection raised by the plaintiff is valid, confirming that Law No. 8 of 2010, concerning the rights of persons with disabilities, mandates the provision of in-kind benefits and monthly allowances for individuals with special needs.

The court emphasized that caring for persons with disabilities is not an act of charity or pity, but rather a societal duty and a state obligation. The court also referenced Article 29 of the law, as amended by Law No. 101 of 2015, which guarantees entitlement to a monthly allowance for disabled individuals until the age of 21, with continued disbursement for those in education until the age of 28. Additionally, the law provides for a monthly allowance for women who care for individuals with severe disabilities and are not employed.

She stated that Article 26 of Resolution No. 340 issuing the regulatory regulations for Law No. 2010/8 on the rights of persons with disabilities stipulated that the Technical Committee shall be responsible for the following:

1. Carrying out the tasks assigned to it by the Director General or the Board of Directors.
2. Expressing a technical opinion on everything referred to it by the Director General or the Board of Directors.
3. Issuing decisions and regulations related to its work.
4. Submitting proposals and studies that serve the interests of persons with disabilities and submitting them to the Board of Directors.
5. Submitting periodic reports on the results of its work for presentation to the Board of Directors.
6. Approving medical reports issued by specialized medical committees.
7. Issuing certificates of proof of disability indicating the type and degree of disability.
8. Re-examining disability cases periodically whenever necessary through the specialized medical committees.
9. Stopping the disbursement of benefits granted to persons with disabilities under Law No. 2010/8 referred to in the event of recovery from disability or not including the case under the concept of disability.
10. Coordinating with the Administrative and Financial Affairs Sector in the event of a change in the type and degree of disability, and what may result It has to change regarding financial allocations.

Cases of non-exchange

The court emphasized that when the objection is clear and unambiguous in its meaning, indicating the intended interpretation, it is not permissible to deviate from it or offer an alternative interpretation.

The judge is required to adhere strictly to the text of the law and apply it to the facts of the case within the limits of the law’s wording. If the text is clear, it cannot be contradicted or restricted, as that would result in a ruling contrary to the legislator’s intent.

In this case, although Article 26 of Resolution No. 340, which issues the regulatory regulations for Law No. 2010/8, specifies that the technical committee is responsible for periodically re-examining disability cases through the competent medical committees, it also limits the cessation of benefits to two specific cases: recovery from the disability or if the case no longer qualifies under the concept of disability.

Since the appellant’s daughter, on his behalf and in his capacity, had no documentation proving that the two conditions for stopping the benefits were met, and given that she still had a dual disability, both moderate and permanent, in terms of movement and physical disability, she remained entitled to the claimed allowances.

Therefore, since the appealed judgment contradicted this view and ruled to reject the lawsuit, it was flawed due to an error in the application of the law, which required its annulment.

Since the decision on the subject of the appeal is valid, and given that the appealed judgment had reached a correct ruling, it must be upheld, and the appeal should be rejected.

Source: Al Jarida