Information Note on the Court’s case-law 62

March 2004

Wretlund v. Sweden (dec.) - 46210/99

Decision 9.3.2004 [Section IV]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Obligation on employee at nuclear plant to undergo drug test: inadmissible

The applicant is employed as an office cleaner at a nuclear plant. In 1995, a drug policy programme was introduced at the plant which required employees to participate in drug and alcohol tests. The programme consisted in the taking of urine samples from the employees every third year, as well as employees stating on a form what kind of medication, if any, they had been taking during the preceding week. The trade union o f which the applicant was a member undertook proceedings with a view to obtaining a declaratory judgment that the applicant was not obliged to participate in the drug and alcohol tests. It argued that the tests breached Article 8 of the Convention as well as the collective agreement and, in the alternative, that domestic legislation did not confer on employers the right to conduct such tests. The Labour Court found that the applicant was obliged to participate in the drug test but not in the alcohol test. D espite the absence of specific legislation on the matter, such tests could be seen as part of the company’s right to manage and organise the work in accordance with the collective agreement. Moreover, the plant was subject to far-reaching demands on securi ty and had a strong interest in maintaining a drug-free environment.

Inadmissible under Article 8: Even though the obligation to subject employees to drug tests did not follow from legislation, the employer’s right to manage and organise work was a common ly accepted principle in the Swedish labour market, and recognised as a general legal principle by the Labour Court. Whilst the obligation to undergo drug tests could be seen as an interference with the employee’s integrity, it was justified in the circums tances of the present case. Operational considerations at the plant relating to public safety and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, in particular other employees, justified the control measure in question.

© Council of Europe/European C ourt of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes