International organisation’s immunity not upheld

Case no. BS-13035/2026-HJR

Order made on 27 August 2026

OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
vs.
A

In 2019, A joined the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, an international organisation headquartered in Copenhagen that enjoys immunity. In 2023, the organisation terminated A’s employment without notice. The decision was referred to the organisation’s internal disciplinary committee, which concluded, among other things, that there were insufficient grounds for terminating the contract without notice, and that the process surrounding the termination did not meet the conditions for a fair process. The disciplinary committee acted as an advisory body to the secretary-general, and its recommendations were not binding. In March 2024, the secretary-general announced that the decision to terminate A’s contract without notice was upheld. There was no right of appeal against this decision, and A then brought an action against the organisation before the Danish courts. 

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether A’s case should be dismissed because of the organisation’s immunity, or whether this would constitute a violation of A’s right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights.

In assessing whether it is proportionate to restrict a worker’s access to the courts by reference to the immunity of an international organisation, it is essential, in accordance with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, that the worker concerned has had reasonable alternative means at their disposal to effectively protect their rights.

The Supreme Court stated that the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly’s internal process did not ensure that A had a reasonable alternative to judicial review that met the requirements of the ECtHR’s case law. It would therefore constitute a violation of A’s right to a fair trial to uphold the organisation’s immunity from her claim. 

The High Court had reached the same conclusion.