A Catholic man has been awarded £12,500stg by the European Court of Human Rights because he could not pursue a claim for religious discrimination in Northern Ireland.
The case concerned Mr Liam Devenney, who got a job as a silver-service waiter in the Culloden Hotel in Co Down in August 1992. He believed he was the only Catholic employed on a full-time basis in the hotel's restaurant.
On October 31st of that year the manager told him he was being dismissed forthwith. He was not given any reason other than that he "did not make the grade".
He made a complaint to the Fair Employment Tribunal that he had been dismissed because of his religious affiliation or political beliefs. Neither he nor 13 of his 15 siblings were involved in any political activity.
His solicitors learned that the hotel had been informed by the RUC that Mr Devenney was a suspect. P.J. McGrory and Co, solicitors, asked the RUC to provide information as to what he was suspected of, but the RUC replied that it was not policy to do so.
Eventually the solicitors for the employers received a certificate from the Crown Solicitor's Office, called a Section 42 certificate, signed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
This provides that where there is an issue of protecting public safety the Fair Employment Tribunal has no jurisdiction to examine an allegation of discrimination.
Mr Devenney said he did not know on what basis this certificate was issued and had not been shown the information laid before the Secretary of State on which it was based.
He complained to the European Court of Human Rights that the issuing of this certificate deprived him of access to the tribunal, to which he was entitled. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that citizens of states which are signatories to the convention have access to appropriate courts and tribunals to vindicate their rights.
Mr Devenney's case was heard before seven judges of the ECHR last month, and they unanimously found that his rights to access to a court or tribunal had been violated by the issuing of the certificate.
While acknowledging that the state had the right to take security considerations into account in relation to those employed in public buildings, it found that the operation of Section 42 meant Mr Devenney was unable to challenge his dismissal or examine the evidence against him.