Andrew Crosbie v Secretary of State for Defence  EWHC 879 (Admin)
The employment of an army chaplain involves a “a special bond of trust and loyalty” between employee and state such that the full panoply of fair trial rights under Article 6 could not apply.
Inclusion of an individual's name on a child protection register did not interfere his right to apply for jobs in the childcare field, even though the appearance of his name on the index would defeat any application he might make
Copsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd, CA (Mummery, Rix and Neuberger LLJ)  EWCA Civ 932
Dismissal of a Christian worker for refusal to work on Sundays was not unfair under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and did not interfere with his right to religious freedom under Article 9.
Devlin v UK
The failure by the Secretary of State to adduce evidence as to the applicant's unsuitability for employment in the civil service before the employment tribunal breached his Article 6 rights
Duda v Czech Republic
Where national courts are incompetent to examine claims touching on the internal autonomy of an institution such as the church, there can be no "civil right" to engage Article 6
Farouk Sabeh El Leil v France
(29 June 2011)
Strasbourg Grand Chamber rules on diplomatic immunity and Article 6
Fogarty v UK
Sovereign immunity is a legitimate restriction on Article 6 access to court rights since it complies with international law by promoting comity and good relations between states
Grainger PLC v T Nicholson
EAT (Burton J) November 3 2009
A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral obligation to act, was capable, if genuinely held, of being a "philosophical belief" for the purposes of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.
Hellum v Norway
A complaint which was in essence a dispute of fact concerning an employment issue could not be raised under Article 10
Home Office (Appellant) v Tariq (Respondent); Home Office (Respondent) v Tariq (Appellant)
Rules allowing closed procedure in employment cases did not breach Article 6
Jensen v Denmark
Complaint about obligatory membership of a trade union under a closed shop agreement admitted for consideration under Article 11
Karlskov v Denmark
An applicant who had received compensation for unlawful dismissal did not qualify as a "victim". Her complaint that closed shop agreements still restricted her access to the job market amounted to an actio popularis.
Kepka v Poland
Public servants bearing considerable responsibilities in the realm of public defence could not claim the protection of Article 6 in employment disputes
Koll v Austria
A public law institution founded by the legislature is not an "association" within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention
The practice of appointing QC's to sit on EAT panels as part time judges conflicts with the right to an impartial tribunal when the same QC has appeared on behalf of one of the parties to the litigation.
It was not a breach of confidence for a local authority to disclose information in the claimant's family social work files to a university at which the claimant had obtained a place to study to become a social worker.
Complaints by members of the armed forces of discrimination by the MoD do not engage Article 6 because such claimants fall within the "public servant" category set out in Pellegrin v France
Marchesini v France
The rejection of the applicant's claim for dismissal before the national tribunals indicated that he had no "civil right" to which Article 6 could attach
Members of the armed services were excluded from relying on the unfair dismissal scheme contained in the Employment Rights Act 1996, and their exclusion did not breach their Article 6 rights.
A decision to exclude mushrooms from the definition of produce the harvesters of which might be paid the lower Manual Harvester Worker rate constituted an unjustified interference with the employers' rights under Article 14 read with Article 1 of the First Protocol.
National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v Serco (t/a Serco Docklands)  EWCA Civ 226
Aslef and RMT rail unions have succeeded in challenging injunctions that blocked their strike action over small faults in procedure
Nerva v UK
The Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the Wages Act 1986 such that tips paid by credit card or cheque were treated as remuneration by an employer for the purpose of fulfilling minimum wage obligations did not give rise to a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
Neshev v Bulgaria
Limitation rules which time-bar individuals from taking advantage of changes in the law before they are in a position to know about such changes offends the principle of legal certainty and as such are in breach of the right to access to court under Article 6.
Offshore Workers v Norway
Article 11 does not include an implied right to strike
The appellant could not challenge the strike out of his claim under Article 6 since the Human Rights Act had not come into force when the strike out was ordered
A public authority employer was entitled to dismiss an employee where his extra-mural activities undermined his professional integrity and reflected badly on the employer; and these activities, being of a public nature, did not engage Article 8.
A non-competition clause restraining the defendants from publishing a textbook did not infringe Article 10
Roepstorff v Denmark
An employee who had been sacked could not complain under the Convention that the Courts had treated him unfairly when they relied on the terms of an agreement reached between his employee and his union
Rotaru v Romania
A wide discretion vested in the authorities to maintain private information about individuals on state files could interefere with their privacy under Article 8
A decision by a tribunal that the DTI did not owe employees certain payments had to be set aside since it was insufficiently independent of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
Wilson v UK
The use of financial incentives to induce employees to surrender the right to union representation for collective bargaining violated Article 11
The legislative machinery for provisionally listing care workers as unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults is unfair and incompatible with Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.
X v Y
In proceedings against a private sector defendant, the claimant has no cause of action under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act, although the courts should have regard to their interpretative obligation under Section 3 of that Act if the legislation in question would lead to a ruling that would be incompatible with one of the Convention freedoms.
Zielinski v France
Retrospective interference with a judicial determination interfered with the applicants' right to a fair trial under Article 6, in particular their right to equality of arms