CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 mars 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 63 April 2004 Jonasson v. Sweden (dec.) - 59403/00 Decision 30.3.2004 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Impossibility of lodging an appeal against dismissal from employment at an airport on grounds of security risk: admissible The applicant was hired as a cook in a company which ran a restaurant at an airport (on premises it rented from the Civil Aviation Administration (CAA)). As a person having access to sensitive areas at the airport, the applicant was subjected to a security check which revealed that he had twice been convicted of assault. Considering that he represented an unsuitable security risk, the CAA requested the company which employed him to prevent the applicant from participating in activities which required a police record check and to turn in his airport access card. The company informed the applicant by letter of the decision by the CAA, which could not be appealed against to a court. As the company could not offer the applicant a job on another location, he was given notice and suspended from work. The applicant’s trade union instituted proceedings against the company at the Labour Court claiming that the dismissal was unjustified. The court found against the applicant, concluding that the CAA’s decision had been taken pursuant to applicable domestic rules and that the company had been obliged to comply with it. Admissible under Articles 6, 8 and 13.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes