Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
5 comments 
The 25th Chamber of Private Law of the São Paulo Court of Justice confirmed, in a unanimous decision, the conviction of the GRU Airport concessionaire to pay R$ 15 thousand for moral damages after a security guard prevented the use of a wheelchair by a woman with a disability at Guarulhos International Airport, without offering an adequate alternative for moving
The São Paulo Court upheld the conviction of GRU Airport to pay R$ 15 thousand for moral damages to a woman with a disability after a security guard prevented the use of a wheelchair at Guarulhos International Airport, a decision considered relevant for the protection of rights.
Decision Confirmed in Second Instance
The decision was made by the 25th Chamber of Private Law of the São Paulo Court of Justice (TJ-SP), which fully confirmed the sentence from the 2nd Civil Court of Tatuí.
The ruling analyzed an appeal presented by the concessionaire, which sought to overturn the conviction imposed in the first instance by Judge Fernando José Alguz da Silveira.
-
Chamber approves constitutional amendment reducing the age of criminal responsibility from 18 to 16 years; what now?
-
Justice confirms that old debts in tax executions that have been stalled for more than 15 years can no longer be collected through judicial or administrative means.
-
Churches may gain a new exemption in the tax reform, but the Treasury warns that Brazilians may pay more taxes to compensate for the loss of revenue.
-
Consumer was awarded R$ 10,000 after being led to believe that the apartment had a private yard, but discovered that the external area was common to the condominium.
Episode Occurred Within the Terminal
According to the case, the woman was at the airport accompanied by her mother to pick up her sister, with no intention of boarding a flight.
At the location, the mother requested a wheelchair from the administration to assist her daughter’s mobility, a request initially met by the team.
A short time later, a security guard instructed the immediate return of the equipment, without presenting an alternative for the user’s movement within the terminal.
Understanding of the Rapporteur of the Case
When analyzing the appeal, the rapporteur, Judge Mary Grün, rejected the argument of the non-existence of a legal obligation to assist non-passengers.
For the magistrate, this claim does not dismiss the duty to ensure dignified, respectful, and adequate treatment for users, especially individuals with physical disabilities.
She highlighted that there was no evidence that the wheelchair was reserved for medical emergencies or was indispensable at that moment.
Wheelchair: Violation of Fundamental Rights
According to the vote, there is no evidence in the records that the equipment was strictly necessary for another person, to the detriment of the user.
The judge stated that the conduct of the security guard constituted a failure in service provision and violated fundamental principles guaranteed by the legislation.
For her, removing the equipment without an adequate alternative compromised human dignity and the rights of the person with a disability, causing embarrassment.
The ruling was unanimous and included participation from Judges João Antunes and Rodolfo César Milano, who fully supported the rapporteur’s vote.
TV Globo requested a position from the concessionaire regarding the judicial decision and was informed that it awaits an official response from the company.
The data is from G1.
Aconteceu comigo na azul em 19 de janeiro de 2025 . Senti dor no joelho no trajeto do check in para o portão . A funcionária negou cadeira de rodas durante emergência . Tenho 82 anos . Ela muito mal educada com meu filho que é deficiente auditivo . Ela disse que a cadeira tem que ser requerida no check in uma regra que já sabemos. Mas ela não se compadeceu com a emergencia . Eu tive medo de cair durante o trajeto para o aviao e prejudicar outros passageiros. Depois de muita luta a cadeira chegou. Lastimável atendimento da Azul.
Privatiza que melhora! Vixi, já é privado.
Como é? Só pode fornecer a cadeira para pessoas que vão embarcar num voo? O Aereoporto é piblico o sei acesso. Então as pessoas que não estão em voo não podem usar também o banheiro, nem comprar ou comer nas lojas de preços absurdos e nem mesmo acessar as areas internas. Onerro está em privatizar os serviços garatido por constituição. Direito de it e vir e espaços públicos.