Employee’s Right to Judicial Review Took Precedence Over International Organization Immunity
On August 27, 2026, the Danish Supreme Court ruled that an employee’s claim against the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly could not be dismissed on the grounds of the organization’s immunity. Immunity entails a special legal status that, among other things, may protect an international organization against legal proceedings before national courts. In the case at hand, however, dismissing the case would have violated the employee’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as the organization’s internal dispute resolution procedure did not constitute a reasonable alternative to court proceedings.
Termination of Employment Contract Without Notice
The case concerned an employee who had been employed by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly since 2019. The organization is headquartered in Copenhagen and enjoys immunity in Denmark. In December 2023, the organization’s Secretary General terminated the employee’s employment contract without notice.
The organization’s internal disciplinary committee subsequently found that there were insufficient grounds for the termination and that the process did not meet the requirements for a fair procedure. The committee was advisory only, and its recommendations were not binding. The Secretary General upheld the termination, and the employee had no opportunity to have the termination decision reviewed by an independent internal body.
The employee subsequently brought proceedings before the Danish courts. The district court dismissed the case on the grounds of the organization’s immunity, while the High Court found that the case should be heard on its merits.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Ruling
Referring to the case law from the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court stated that the immunity of international organizations serves a legitimate purpose that may justify a restriction on access to the courts. When assessing whether such a restriction is proportionate, it is particularly important whether the employee has had reasonable alternative means available to protect their rights, and this requires that the alternative procedure is not manifestly deficient.
In the case at hand, the Supreme Court emphasized that the disciplinary committee was advisory only and could not issue binding decisions, and that no right of appeal to an independent body had been established. The internal dispute resolution procedure therefore did not provide the employee with a reasonable alternative to court proceedings.
Against this background, maintaining the organization’s immunity would have violated the employee’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR. The Supreme Court therefore upheld the High Court’s ruling.
Littler’s Comments
The decision emphasizes the importance of how international organizations that enjoy immunity structure their internal procedures for handling employment law disputes. Where an employee is prevented from having a dispute tried by the national courts as a result of an organization’s immunity, it is essential that the employee has reasonable alternative means of protecting their rights.
In the case at hand, it was particularly significant that the disciplinary committee was advisory only and that there was no opportunity to have the Secretary General’s decision reviewed by an independent body.
The Supreme Court did not rule on whether the termination of the employee’s employment contract was justified. The underlying employment law dispute must therefore now be heard on its merits by the district court.
Littler advises international organizations and employers on employment law matters, including employment-related disputes and internal dispute resolution procedures.
If you have any questions regarding the ruling or would like advice on similar matters, please contact attorney Christian Bonne Rasmussen at
Supreme Court ruling (BS-13035/2026-HJR):
https://doms>tol.fe1.tangora.com/media/-300016/files/13035-2026.pdf?rev1
