Key messages

1. The EC employed a couple of “avoidance techniques” to stay away from sanctioning the use of ESIFs contrary to the CRPD in the previous 2014–2021 ESIF programming period.
2. The interpretation of the CRPD offered by the EC is ineffective and hardly based on the general rules of treaty interpretation of the VCLT.
3. Considering the problematic interpretations by the EC, even CRPD-compliant legislation may, in practice, be a framework for actions not compliant with the CRPD.
4. It is reasonable to suspect that the EC’s concern is to avoid opposition from the Member States that use the funds to build long-stay group facilities for children and adults with disabilities.
5. The advocacy impact of OPDs and NGOs is visible in EU financial regulation that adopts slightly more CRPD-aligned wording and measures that should improve monitoring of the use of ESIFs.
6. OPDs and NGOs are significant agents of the internalization of the CRPD in the EU and domestically, but their influence is likely overridden by Member States.