Sweden: The Labour Court Sets aside the Summary Dismissal of a Civil Employee of the Swedish Police Authority following a Conviction for Aggravated Drunk Driving

Author: Anna Tallroth

In AD 2026 no. 29, the Swedish Labour Court considered whether the Police Authority was entitled to summarily dismiss, or at least terminate, a civil case officer employed at the National Operations Department (NOA). The employee had no police training, no police powers and no duties involving the exercise of public authority. He was later convicted of aggravated drunk driving and grossly negligent driving after an off-duty traffic incident in which he drove with a blood alcohol level of at least 2.14 per mille, ran a red light, drove against the direction of traffic and collided with another vehicle.

The Police Authority argued that the offences, together with statements made by the employee to a witness and to the attending police officers, showed that he was manifestly unsuitable for continued employment. According to witness evidence, he told the witness words to the effect that the witness should be aware that he worked for the Police Authority. He also repeatedly told the attending police officers that he worked at NOA, asked whether they knew who he was, and remarked that his job was probably more important than theirs. The trade union argued that there were not even objective reasons for termination and, in any event, no legal grounds for summary dismissal, in particular because the criminal conduct was connected to an alcohol dependency of a disease-like nature, had taken place in the private life, and had been followed by successful rehabilitation.

The Labour Court held that the criminal conduct was serious but emphasised that the employee’s alcohol dependency was undisputed between the parties, that he had immediately cooperated in rehabilitation measures, and that the rehabilitation had ended successfully. The conduct could therefore, in the Court’s view, be treated as an isolated incident. The Labour Court further stressed that the employee was civil staff, without police powers and without duties involving the exercise of public authority, and that there was therefore no reason to impose the same strict integrity requirements as for police officers. Although the statements made to the witness and the police patrol were clearly inappropriate, the Court considered the risk of damage to the authority’s reputation and the risk of improper influence to be limited. The summary dismissal was therefore declared invalid, and the Court further held that there were not even objective reasons for termination.

Key Action Points for Human Resources and In-house Counsel:

Employers should assess off-duty criminal conduct in light of the employee’s role, the nature of the conduct, any addiction-related circumstances, the employee’s participation in rehabilitation, and whether less intrusive measures should be considered before termination.