Views
Jurisdiction for claims against transnational companies for human rights violations
Written by Anatol Dutta, University of Munich
Note: This blogpost is part of a series on „Corporate social responsibility and international law“ that presents the main findings of the contributions published in August Reinisch, Stephan Hobe, Eva-Maria Kieninger & Anne Peters (eds), Unternehmensverantwortung und Internationales Recht, C.F. Müller, 2020.
1. The question of the reach of courts’ jurisdiction is highly significant for claims against transnational enterprises based on human rights violations or environmental damages abroad. It does not only determine the applicable law but also the access to a particular justice system.
2. Universal jurisdiction of national courts for human rights and environmental damages claims against enterprises cannot be established, neither on the basis of existing law nor from a legal policy perspective. Rather, such claims have to be handled under the traditional jurisdictional mechanisms.
3. From a global perspective, a remarkable shift regarding jurisdiction can be noted: Whereas the courts in the United States are increasingly limiting access to their justice system in cases with foreign elements, jurisdictional limits are no significant hurdle for human rights and environmental damages claims in the European Union.
4. Domestic enterprises can be sued at their seat. Yet, the forum non conveniens doctrine allows US courts – and perhaps soon English courts as well – to decline jurisdiction, also for human rights and environmental damages claims.
5. Yet, human rights and environmental damages claims against foreign enterprises can also only be brought under certain circumstances in the EU.
6. Claims against foreign enterprises for human rights violations and environmental damages abroad can only rarely be brought before domestic courts based on special jurisdiction related to specific subject matters, for example the jurisdiction for tort claims at the place where the harmful event occurred.
7. If human rights and environmental damages claims are simultaneously directed against a domestic enterprise, for example a mother company or a buyer company in the EU, at least partially, foreign subsidiaries and suppliers can be sued on the basis of special jurisdiction over multiple defendants which can be used strategically.
a) If foreign enterprises have their seat in a third State outside the European Union, the jurisdiction of the domestic courts over the foreign co-defendant is governed by the national law of the forum Member State.
b) However, the current trend to establish a separate liability of domestic enterprises, for example, by extending human rights and environment-related duties of care for the supply chain, could endanger this special jurisdiction over multiple defendants, which, on the other hand, could lose significance.
8. Extending the general jurisdiction at the domicile of the defendant by relying on a personal criterion different to the seat of the defendant enterprise is not a viable solution.
a) Today US courts refuse to exercise jurisdiction based solely on the foreign enterprise ‘doing business’ within the territory. In some EU Member States, for claims against foreign enterprises at least with a seat in a third State, exorbitant jurisdiction can be established, for example, based on assets of the foreign defendant enterprise within the territory.
b) At the most from a policy perspective, for claims against foreign subsidiaries of a domestic enterprise the introduction of an enterprise jurisdiction could be considered.
9. For claims against foreign enterprises jurisdiction of the domestic courts can often only be based on a forum necessitatis if proceedings cannot reasonably and effectively be brought or conducted abroad; the hurdles for such an exceptional jurisdiction are, however, high.
10. To hear human rights and environmental damages claims against enterprises lies within the powers of the domestic courts.
a) Foreign enterprises do not enjoy State immunity even if they violate human rights or damage the environment abroad in collaboration with foreign States.
b) The power to adjudicate is also not limited by the fact that a decision of the court on human rights and environmental damages claims potentially has implications on the foreign policy relations of the forum State.
c) The domestic courts are often even not barred from deciding on human rights and environmental damages claims of foreign States against enterprises.
Full (German) version: Anatol Dutta, Internationale Zuständigkeit für privatrechtliche Klagen gegen transnational tätige Unternehmen wegen der Verletzung von Menschenrechten und von Normen zum Schutz der natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen im Ausland, in: August Reinisch, Stephan Hobe, Eva-Maria Kieninger & Anne Peters (eds), Unternehmensverantwortung und Internationales Recht, C.F. Müller, 2020, pp. 39 et seq.
Jurisdiction to Garnish Funds in Foreign Bank Account
By Stephen G.A. Pitel, Faculty of Law, Western University
Instrubel, N.V., a Dutch corporation, has been attempting in litigation in Quebec to garnish assets of the Republic of Iraq. The difficult issue has been the nature of the assets sought to be garnished and where they are, as a matter of law, located. The assets are funds in a bank account in Switzerland payable to the Republic of Iraq (through the Iraqi Civil Aviation Authority) by IATA, a Montreal-based trade association.
The judge at first instance held the assets were not a debt obligation but in effect the property of the Republic of Iraq and located in Switzerland and so could not be subject to garnishment in Quebec proceedings. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the assets were a debt due to the Republic of Iraq which it could enforce against the trade association at its head office in Quebec, so that the debt was located in Quebec under the basic rule for locating the situs of a debt.
Last December the Supreme Court of Canada denied the appeal for the reasons of the Quebec Court of Appeal. One judge, Justice Cote, dissented with reasons to follow. On May 1, 2020, she released those reasons: see International Air Transport Association v. Instrubel, N.V., 2019 SCC 61 (available here).
As a Quebec case, the decision is based on the civil law. Justice Cote’s dissent hinges on the view that the funds in the account are the property of the Republic of Iraq, not the IATA, and are merely being held by the latter before being remitted to the former (see para. 36). The funds are not part of the “patrimony” of the IATA. This is because the nature of the agreement between the Republic of Iraq and the IATA is one of “mandate” (see paras. 40-41 and 45). As Justice Cote notes (at para. 48) “there is a general principle in the law of mandate that a mandatary’s obligation towards a mandator is not a debt”. While the payments that went into the bank account were collected and held by the IATA, they were made to the Republic of Iraq (para. 53). Indeed, the account “is for practical purposes equivalent to a trust account” (para. 61).
As noted, the six judges in the majority simply adopted the reasons of the Quebec Court of Appeal (available here). So they did not directly engage with Justice Cote’s reasons. The Court of Appeal concluded (at para. 41) that “there is no ownership of or real right to the funds … Rather, there is a creditor/debtor relationship”. It also observed that the Republic of Iraq “never owned the debts due it by various airlines in consideration of landing at Iraqi airports. It does not now own the funds collected in satisfaction of those debts and deposited by IATA in its bank account. IATA’s obligation is to pay a sum of money not to give the dollar bills received from third parties” (para. 43).
The Court of Appeal noted (at para. 50) a practical rationale for its conclusion: “More significantly it seems that [Instrubel, N.V.] and others in similar positions which seek to execute an unsatisfied claim would be forced into an international “shell game” of somehow discovering (or guessing) where the mandatary/garnishee (IATA), deposited the money – a virtually impossible task. The law, correctly applied, should not lead, in my view, to such unworkable results. As the in personam debtor of ICAA, it matters not whether IATA deposited the money it collected and giving rise to such indebtedness in a bank account in Geneva, New York or Montreal. The situs of its bank account does not change the situs of the debt IATA owes to its creditor. As such, that funds were initially collected in Montreal or at an IATA branch office in another country is inconsequential.”
The case is at minimum important for what it does not do, which is authorize the garnishing of assets outside Quebec. All judges take the position that would be impermissible.
Germany’s Approach to Cross-border Corporate Social Responsibility of Enterprises: Latest Developments
by Marie Elaine Schäfer
The cross-border expansion of EU companies’ economic activities not only leads to a globalised market, but also impacts human rights as well as the environment in countries worldwide. The recent rise of claims against EU companies for the violations committed by their subsidiaries located in third countries is a by-product of that context. With Germany being the world’s third largest importing country, the question of corporate responsibility for harmful events abroad is crucial. The present post provides an overview of the most recent legal developments on that topic.
“National Action Plan” and voluntary principle
The central aspect of Germany’s approach to prevent human rights violations and environmental damages caused by German companies’ foreign subsidiaries is a voluntary – as opposed to binding – principle.
In 2016, the German Government adopted the “Nationaler Aktionsplan Wirtschaft und Menschenrechte” (National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights) to implement the UN guiding principles on Business and Human Rights (Ruggie Principles). This fixed framework is the first of its kind in Germany. The objective of the National Action Plan is to delineate German enterprises’ responsibility to protect human rights: at least 50 per cent of all large companies in Germany (with more than 500 employees) have to implement a system of human rights due diligence by 2020. Accordingly, “[c]ompanies should publicly express their willingness to respect human rights in a policy statement, identify risks, assess the impact of their activities on human rights, take countermeasures if necessary, communicate how they deal with risks internally and externally and establish a transparent complaints mechanism” (see the Report on the National Action Plan).
An inter-ministerial committee (on business and human rights), formed by the Government under the auspices of the German Federal Foreign Office, monitors the status of implementation of human rights due diligence. However, any tangible measures remain optional for companies and inaction entails no consequences yet.
KiK litigation
German courts faced the question of companies’ liability to some extent in the KiK litigation, which ended with a judgment issued by the Court of Dortmund (Germany) in 2019.
The facts of that case are the following: the German textile importer and reseller KiK Textilen and Non-Food GmbH (hereafter, KiK) is listed amongst the ten largest providers in the German textile industry and has over 28.000 employees. In September 2012, 259 people died in a fire in a textile factory in Pakistan and 47 more were injured. The main buyer of the factory’s goods was KiK. In 2015, relatives of three of the deceased victims and one of the injured workers himself started proceedings against KiK in the Regional Court of Dortmund for damages of 30.000 € each for suffering and the death of the deceased victims.
The court ruled that, based on Art. 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation, Pakistani law was applicable. In the main proceedings, that court retained expert evidence on Pakistani Law and dismissed the lawsuit due to the Pakistani limitation period for such claims that ended even before the proceedings in Germany had started. For further general discussion on Article 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation as well as on the potential relevance of Article 4(3) Rome II Regulation see here.
According to the further holdings of the court, the claimants could alternatively hold KiK liable for the events in Pakistan, had an acknowledgement of liability been written. However, KiK had agreed on a code of conduct with the supplier, which the court and the expert on Pakistani law evaluated as an agreement to compensate on an ex gratia basis and not as an acknowledgement of liability. Furthermore, the court stated that, even if German law was applicable, a code of conduct would then, at most, lead to a legal binding agreement between KiK and the supplier. The suppliers’ employees could not file any direct claims against KiK based on the supply contract and the code of conduct, which cannot be seen as a contract to the benefit of a third party under German law (supplementary interpretation of the contract).
In light of this, it is questionable how long the voluntary principle will remain the leading path in Germany’s approach to deal with expanding supply chains and the challenges for both environmental and human rights standards.
Current legislative developments
An alliance of non-governmental institutions (similar to the coalition that launched the Swiss initiative populaire “entreprises responsables – pour protéger l’être humain et l’environnement” in 2016) has formed the “Initiative Lieferkettengesetz” (Supply chain Law Initiative) with the intention of establishing binding obligations as they can be found in the French Duty of Vigilance Law (“loi n°2017-399 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et entreprises donneuses d’ordre”). Accordingly, German companies shall establish diligence plans to protect human rights and the environment in the states where their subsidiaries are located. Violations of diligence would lead to sanctions in form of shortening of government aids and high fines. In order to ensure the companies’ liability for violations in German courts, the law would be formed as an overriding mandatory provision in the sense of Art. 9(1) of the Rome I Regulation.
Applied to the KiK litigation, the problem does not only lie within the applicability of German law. As the Court of Dortmund ruled, only a written acknowledgement of liability would enable employees to start proceedings. Since a mandatory system of due diligence would likely take the form of codes of conduct rather than acknowledgements of liability, violations of German law would lead to the sanctioning of the companies but would not offer a cause of action to suppliers’ employees against the German enterprises.
Even though the enactment of a supply chain law remains highly disputed within the government, recent developments show that a change towards binding obligations may be on its way.
The ministers of labour and of development are of the opinion that the voluntary principle does not lead to the desired result, since only about 20 per cent of the companies affected by the National Action Plan have carried out human rights due diligence in 2019. According to Gerd Müller, the minister of development, legislation will follow if a second survey in 2020 does not show any improvement.
In addition to that, in 2019, more than 40 German companies, ranging from larger enterprises, such as Nestlé Germany to Start-Ups, publicly demanded binding obligations to ensure legal certainty and equal competitive competitions.
As shown, German Companies’ responsibility is a question of voluntary implementation of the National Action Plan. In light of the KiK litigation, employees’ proceedings against enterprises will likely have no success, although legislation in this field may lead to higher standards that enterprises then would have to impose to their suppliers abroad.
Still, the introduction of legislation remains uncertain as the result of a second survey on the National Action Plan’s implementation will determine upcoming developments and the future of the German voluntary principle.
As was reported on this blog here, the Munich Dispute Resolution Day on 5 May 2020 was going to focus on “Human Rights Lawsuits before Civil and Arbitral Courts in Germany”, but Covid-19 forced the organisors to reschedule.
Marie Elaine Schäfer, Student Research Assistant at the University of Bonn, Germany
News
The Japanese Yearbook of International Law (Vol. 65, 2022)
The latest Volume (Vol. 65, 2022) of the Japanese Yearbook of International Law – published by the International Law Association of Japan – has been recently released. It features the following articles, case notes as well as English translation of some relevant court decisions relating to private international law.
GLOBALIZATION OF SOCIETY AND INTERNATIONAL FAMILY LAW IN JAPAN
Takami Hayashi, Introductory Note (p. 167)
Ryoko Yamaguchi, Interests of the Child in Child Abduction and Visitation Cases — Differences Between Japan’s Domestic and International Criteria— (p. 169)
Takami Hayashi, Transboundary Child Protection in Japan (p. 191)
HAYAKAWA Shinichiro, Japanese Perspective on Legal Issues of International Surrogacy (p. 213)
Moonsook Kim, International Adoption in Korea (p. 231)
Manabu Iwamoto, International Recovery of Maintenance in Japan (247)
ABLI-HCCH webinar: Cross-border Commercial Dispute Resolution – HCCH 1965 Service Convention (27 June 2023)
Following successful collaborations in 2021 and 2022, the Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) and the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) are teaming up again for their third joint webinar this year on Tuesday 27 June between 4 to 5:10pm (Singapore time) or 10 to 11:10am (CEST).
Titled Cross-border Commercial Dispute Resolution – HCCH 1965 Service Convention, the webinar is expected to discuss, among others, the operation of the Service Convention in practice, how the Service Convention works with the other HCCH Conventions for cross-border dispute resolution, and Singapore’s accession to and upcoming implementation of the Service Convention.
Invited speakers include Sara Chisholm-Batten (Partner, Michelmores LLP), Melissa Ford (Secretary, HCCH), Delphia Lim (2Director, International Legal Division, Ministry of Law, Singapore), Professor Yeo Tiong Min (Singapore Management University), and Professor Yun Zhao (University of Hong Kong and Representative of Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, HCCH).
For more information or to register, click here. Early bird discount is available till 28 May.
More about the webinar and its speakers can be found in the flyer.
Queries about the webinar can be directed to ABLI at info@abli.asia.
Milan Arbitration Week – 2023 edition
From 22 to 27 May 2023, the 2023 edition of the Milan Arbitration Week will take place, online and in presence. It encompasses a series of events dedicated to domestic, international commercial and investment arbitration, with the participation of renowned Italian and foreign experts from academia and legal profession.
The Milan Arbitration Week is jointly organized by Università degli Studi di Milano and the European Court of Arbitration, in collaboration with DLA Piper-Milan, Comitato Italiano dell’Arbitrato, the Centre of Research DEuTraDiS and the Erasmus + Programme of the European Union.
In particular, this edition will focus on the recent Italian reform of arbitration law; the mechanism of the mandatory mediation; the status quo and future perspectives of surfing on pledges in international arbitration; the umbrella clauses; the recent developments of the relationships between EU Law and investment arbitration. In addition, the MiAW, always attentive to the relationship between university education and arbitration, will host a chat with the winners of the 30th edition of the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot, as well as the Frankfurt Investment Pre-Moot (Conference and hearings), organized by DLA Piper, Milan.
All information (including how to register) can be found at this link.