Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

Devlin v. the United Kingdom

Doc ref: 29545/95 • ECHR ID: 002-6326

Document date: October 30, 2001

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 0

Devlin v. the United Kingdom

Doc ref: 29545/95 • ECHR ID: 002-6326

Document date: October 30, 2001

Cited paragraphs only

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 35

October 2001

Devlin v. the United Kingdom - 29545/95

Judgment 30.10.2001 [Section III]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Access to court

Issuing of national security certificate precluding operation of legislation on non-discrimination in employment: violation

Civil rights and obligations

Denial of access to the civil service, allegedly on discriminatory grounds: Article 6 applicable

Facts : After passing a test and attending an interview, the applicant was told that he was being recommended for appointment to a low-grade post in the Northern Ireland Civil Service, subject to pre-appointment enquiries. He was later informed that he had been unsuccessful. No reasons were given, but the applicant believes it was because he is a Catholic. He applied to the Fair Employment Tribunal, but the Secretary of State issued a certificate to the effect that the refusal of employ ment was on national security grounds, as a result of which the Fair Employment legislation did not apply. An application for judicial review was dismissed.

Law : Article 6 § 1 – The post for which the applicant had applied did not involve wielding a portio n of the State's sovereign power and there is therefore no reason to exclude the dispute from the scope of this provision. He may claim to have had a civil right not to be discriminated against in the employment sphere and Article 6 applies. There was no i ndependent scrutiny of the facts which led to the certificate being issued by the Secretary of State and there were no other available mechanisms of complaint. There was therefore a disproportionate restriction on the applicant's right of access to court.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

© 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

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 401132 • Paragraphs parsed: 45279850 • Citations processed 3468846