In Ruling T-006/25 of January 16, 2025, the Constitutional Court, in a review proceeding, analyzed the case file of a writ of protection filed by a visually impaired citizen against a gym that denied him entry with his guide dog, requiring him to hire a personal trainer or pay an additional membership fee for a companion as a condition of entry.
The Eighth Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court determined that these restrictions violated the plaintiff’s fundamental rights to equality, recreation, and sports. In its ruling, the Court concluded that the gym violated rights for the following reasons:
(i) It failed in its duty to adapt the physical space of the gym to the needs of the visually impaired population.
(ii) It disregarded the duty of solidarity, according to which persons present in the facilities must contribute to overcoming the difficulties faced by the plaintiff in carrying out his training routine.
(iii) Instead of assuming its responsibility to ensure conditions of inclusion, it imposed additional burdens on the plaintiff as a requirement for allowing him to enter.
The Court emphasized that refusing to allow the guide dog to enter disregarded the importance of service animals in promoting the autonomy and independence of persons with disabilities. Furthermore, the conditions imposed for access to the gym created unnecessary barriers, rather than ensuring reasonable accommodations for inclusion.
As a result of the above, the Court ordered the defendant to adopt measures that promote accessibility, train its staff in inclusive care, eliminate requirements that hinder access for persons with disabilities, and amend its General Service Regulations, excluding assistance or service animals from the general prohibition on animals entering its facilities.
Finally, copies were sent to the National Police to assess the possible imposition of a penalty, in accordance with the National Police Code.
