The following is based on a communication written by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders and other UN experts to the Government of Sweden on 9 February 2026. The communication remained confidential for 60 days before being made public, giving the Government time to reply. The Government responded on 21 April 2026.
While the Special Rapporteur appreciates the Government’s response to the joint communication, she remains extremely concerned about Mr. Helgeson’s dismissal in what appears to be clear connection with legitimate trade union activity in defence of human rights, and in particular the limited scope for remedy in his case. In this contexts, she emphasises the relevance of article 9.1 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which states: “In the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the promotion and protection of human rights as referred to in the present Declaration, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to benefit from an effective remedy and to be protected in the event of the violation of those rights.“
This is a shorter version of the original communication.
Read the full communication Read the Government’s responseBACKGROUND
Topic: the termination of employment of trade union leader and human rights defender Mr. Erik Helgeson at Gothenburg RoRo Terminal AB, following a temporary blockade against the handling of all military materiel going to and coming from Israel in Swedish ports organized by the Swedish Dockworkers Union in the beginning of 2025.
Mr. Erik Helgeson is a trade union leader and human rights defender in Sweden. He is the Vice Chairman and spokesperson of the Swedish Dockworkers Union (Svenska Hamnarbetarförbundet) and works for the promotion of the rights to freedom of association, peaceful assembly, and freedom of opinion and expression.
ALLEGATIONS
On 14 January 2025, following a referendum held by its members in December 2024, the Swedish Dockworkers Union formally communicated its decision to implement a temporary blockade against the handling of all military materiel going to and coming from Israel in Swedish ports, as a form of protest to prevent the involvement of the Swedish infrastructure in potential violations of international humanitarian and human rights law in Gaza. The blockade was a largely symbolic measure intended to last for six days from 4 to 9 February 2025. Mr. Helgeson, as the spokesperson of the Union, publicly clarified that open sources would be used to identify military cargo. All other commercial goods would continue to be handled normally. The Swedish Dockworkers Union had taken similar actions in support of human rights in the past, including in 2022 when they reportedly blocked Russian shipping following the invasion of Ukraine. On that occasion, no individual union representative faced repercussions.
On 28 January 2025, in response to the Union’s notice of the blockade, the logistics company employing Mr. Helgeson, Gothenburg RoRo Terminal AB, filed through a security company a police report against him, alleging that his public statements constituted a “breach of confidentiality” and hence could be a “security threat”.
On the same day, the Swedish Police Authority examined the complaint and dismissed these allegations, establishing that Mr. Helgeson’s actions were not unlawful and did not constitute a breach of confidentiality. On 4 February 2025, the Chancellor of Justice came to the same conclusion.
On 3 February 2025, the Swedish Labour Court ruled that there were no legal impediments for the Union to carry out the blockade and that this was a “lawful political industrial action” and a legitimate exercise of the constitutional right to industrial action protected under chapter 2, section 14 of the Regeringsformen, or Instrument of Government (decision no. 3/25).
On the same day, following the Labour Court’s decision and just before the blockade was set to commence, Mr. Helgeson was notified by his employer of his termination and suspended from the workplace with immediate effect. Gothenburg RoRo Terminal AB also issued a press release citing “national security grounds”, despite police authorities had already dismissed similar allegations.
On 21 March 2025, Mr. Helgeson was formally terminated. The justification of the employer for his termination cited the 2018 Protective Security Act (Säkerhetsskyddslagen), meant to regulate the protection of “security-sensitive activities against espionage, sabotage, terrorist offences and other offences that may threaten those activities, and protection in other cases of classified information”. Under Swedish law, private operators of “security-sensitive activities”, such as ports, are responsible for conducting their own security assessment, hence they can invoke the Protective Security Act unilaterally and terminate an employee if they consider the person a “security risk”, even without a court or police indictment. Despite citing the Protective Security Act, the justification referred to activities in line with the trade union’s mandate. It also mentioned two incidents occurred in 2020 and 2023, both related to trade union functions and both previously settled. On both these occasions,
Mr. Helgeson had exercised his duties to advocate for workers’ rights and safety. On 5 June 2025, the Union filed a lawsuit with the Swedish Labour Court (Arbetsdomstolen) seeking to invalidate the termination.
On 17 December 2025, the Labour Court issued an interlocutory judgement (decision no. 97/25), ruling that the Union’s claim to invalidate the termination was time-barred. Under the Employment Protection Act, the statutory deadline for a union to file a lawsuit seeking invalidation of a wrongful termination is strictly limited to two weeks after the conclusion of negotiations, while the limitation period for claiming damages is four months. The Union requested a central negotiation in accordance with the collective agreement on 2 May 2025, and the parties agreed to hold the meeting on 26 May 2025. However, on 9 May 2025, the collective agreement expired due to the industrial conflict. Although the parties met and negotiated on 26 May 2025, and despite no objections had reportedly been raised from the employer before this date, the Court ruled that the existence of the collective agreement was a prerequisite to the holding of a negotiation. Hence, the legal negotiation was deemed to have concluded on 9 May 2025, when the agreement expired, and the Court calculated the two-week deadline from this date, meaning that the limitation period for the invalidation claim expired on 23 May 2025, three days before the parties actually concluded the negotiation. As the lawsuit was filed on 5 June 2025, it was deemed to have been submitted late in relation to the invalidation claim. The Union had argued that the termination constituted a legal act that violated the freedom of association under the Co-determination Act, which contains provisions allowing such acts to be declared void, but the Court established that the two-week procedural deadline in the Employment Protection Act overrides the provisions of the Co-determination Act. As a result, even if the Court concludes that the termination was unlawful and violated Mr. Helgeson’s rights, this cannot be reversed.
With the judgement of 17 December 2025, the Labour Court ordered to immediately cease Mr. Helgeson’s employment. The claims regarding wrongful termination are still set to be tried before the Labour Court, which has established a schedule for the exchange of final written submissions throughout February and March 2026, after which a date will be set for the main hearing. As the legal possibility of reinstatement is no longer available for Mr. Helgeson, the scope of the remedy is now restricted to the claim for financial damages. He is currently unemployed.
CONCERNS
In the communication, we express concern about the termination of Mr. Erik Helgeson’s employment, which appears to be in retaliation for his human rights activities in the framework of the work of the trade union and to the exercise of his rights to freedom of association, peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. It is worrying that this happened after the Police Authority had dismissed the employer’s complaint and the Labour Court had already confirmed the lawful nature of Mr. Helgeson’s protected activity.
We are particularly concerned about the unilateral invocation of “national security grounds” by Mr. Helgeson’s employer without a court or police indictment, which seemsto be a way to stigmatize and silence him and other human rights defenders through the use of vague or exaggerated security narratives and deter future human rights activism by trade union workers. Such unilateral security assessments by a private actor risk being misused to blacklist human rights defenders and restrict their
ability to engage as trade union representatives. We further note the short timeframe provided to challenge the invalidation of a wrongful termination, which might constitute a structural barrier to the enjoyment of the right to access effective remedies and to the reinstatement of employees who are removed from their job and whose termination is found to be wrongful.
The allegations appear to contravene articles 19, 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the duty States have to safeguard such right under article 2 ICCPR. The Human Rights Committee has established that there is a duty of States to put in place effective measures to protect against attacks of all kinds, including retaliation measures, aimed at silencing those exercising their right to freedom of expression.
