INCLUSIVE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES: JUDICIAL MECHANISMS FOR THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS IN THE FAMILY—SCHOOL—STATE SYSTEM

Abstract

The article examines judicial mechanisms for protecting the right of children with disabilities to inclusive education. The authors proceed from the premise that violations in this sphere are heterogeneous in legal nature yet are treated in the literature as a single phenomenon, without differentiation of the remedies applicable to different types of violation. The study aims to identify and systematise the legal mechanisms through which the family realises and protects the child’s right to inclusion, on the basis of an analysis of judicial practice. The methodological framework comprises normative-legal and comparative-legal methods together with content analysis of court decisions; the normative base includes the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Family Code and the Federal Law “On Education in the Russian Federation”. The empirical base consists of two contrasting judicial acts: the decision of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow of 18 June 2021 in case No. 2-1345/2021 on the lawfulness of conclusions issued by a psychological, medical and pedagogical commission, and the decision of the Zernogradsky District Court of Rostov Oblast of 10 March 2025 in case No. 2-385/2025 on the creation of a barrier-free environment in a preschool institution; the case of G. L. v. Italy (European Court of Human Rights, 2020) is analysed additionally. The novelty of the study lies in distinguishing two independent types of violation: procedural, linked to the commission’s work, and infrastructural, linked to the physical accessibility of the educational institution. Each type is shown to require its own claim construction and its own scope of proof, while the choice of procedural claimant – the interested person or the prosecutor – is determined by the nature of the violation: targeted in the first case and non-targeted, systemic in the second. The absence of a relevant specialist on the commission and the incompleteness of the submitted documents are shown to constitute an independent and sufficient ground for declaring the conclusion unfounded, whereas the lack of budgetary funding affects only the time limit for fulfilling the obligation without releasing the institution from it; this position accords with the approach of the European Court of Human Rights. It is concluded that the family acts as a system-forming element of the protection mechanism, since administrative self-monitoring by commissions and educational institutions is triggered only after an external appeal. The authors note the pilot nature of the study and the need to expand the empirical base.