Devenney v. United Kingdom
From DADEL
Case Summary
Devenney v. United Kingdom
European Court of Human Rights
Application no.24265/94
Judgment of 19/06/2002
The Applicant alleges violation of Article 6, Article 6 read with Article 13 and 14 of the Convention.
Contents |
Facts
Applicant, employed as a waiter in Northern Ireland, was dismissed from his job without being given any reason. He believes that he was the only Catholic employee of among the restaurant staff. The applicant filed a complaint with the Fair Employment Commission. The applicant's solicitors also learned that the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) had approached the applicant's employer and stated that he was a suspect. The applicant's solicitors requested that the RUC provide them with information on the basis of which the applicant had been deemed a suspect. The RUC declined to comment. In the hearing before the Employment Commission, the applicant's former employers claimed that the Commission lacked jurisdiction, since the dismissal had been carried out "for the purpose of protecting public safety," in accordance with section 42 of the Fair Employment Act of 1976, and the case should be dismissed. When the Commission moved to examine whether it had jurisdiction on these grounds, the employer notified it that it had received a certificate from the Crown Solicitor attesting to the Section 42 nature of the claim, and the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.The applicant had never been notified of or confronted with any information possessed by the government that would lead to the issuance of such a certificate.
Admissibility
The Application was found to be admissible.
Merits
The Court found that the restriction placed upon the applicant's right of access to a court was not proportional, and the UK violated the applicant's Article 6 rights. Regarding the Applicant's claim of violation of Article 6 read with Article 13 and 14, The Court found that, since it had found a breach of Article 6 §1, it was not necessary to consider this portion of the applicant's claim.
Decision
The Court found that there was a violation of Article 6 § 1 and directed the respondent State to pay the applicant GBP 10,000 (ten thousand pounds sterling) in respect of loss of opportunity and his costs and expenses.