No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Jurisdiction in Foreign Direct Liability Cases in Europe
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 December 2019
Extract
The right to remedy for victims of human rights abuses by transnational corporations is far from guaranteed. Often, the state where the abuses occurred is unwilling or incapable of offering effective remedies, especially effective judicial remedies. The victims may then choose to “go global” and bring civil suits in the courts of other states, including the home states of the corporations alleged to have committed the abuse. One way in which they have done so is by bringing so-called “foreign direct liability” (FDL) cases: civil claims in domestic courts of foreign states against corporate actors, in the hopes of getting financial compensation as a remedy.
- Type
- Fourth Annual Detlev F. Vagts Roundtable on Transnational Law: Corporate Liability for Human Rights Violations after Jesner v. Arab Bank
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2019 by The American Society of International Law
References
1 Beth Stephens, The Curious History of the Alien Tort Statute, 89 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1518 (2014).
2 569 U.S. 108 (2013).
3 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018).
4 Axel Marx, et al., Access to Legal Remedies for Victims of Corporate Human Rights Abuses in Third Countries, February, European Parliament Policy Department for External Relations (2019), available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/603475/EXPO_STU(2019)603475_EN.pdf.
5 Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, Art. 1(3), Dec. 13, 2007, inserting Article (1)(a) of the Treaty on European Union TEU (TEU), amending TEU Article 2(5), and inserting TEU Article (10)(A). This role was also emphasized by Professor John Ruggie, principal author of the UN Guiding Principles, in a letter to the president of the European Commission. See Letter from John G. Ruggie to Jean-Claude Juncker (Feb. 23 2017), available at https://www.shiftproject.org/media/resources/docs/Ruggie_LettertoPresidentJunckerFeb2017.pdf.
6 Liesbeth F.H. Enneking, Foreign Direct Liability and Beyond: Exploring the Role of Tort Law in Promoting International Corporate Social Responsibility and Accountability 130 (2012).
7 See, e.g., Deighton Pierce Glynn, Gilberto Torres BP Case Ends But Opens Doors (Oct. 13, 2016), at http://www.dpglaw.co.uk/gilberto-torres-bp-case-ends-opens-doors.
8 Lucas Roorda, Kiobel v Royal Dutch Shell – het vervolg?, UCALL Blog (Nov. 3, 2016), at http://blog.ucall.nl/index.php/2016/11/kiobel-v-royal-dutch-shell-het-vervolg.
9 Rechtbank Den Haag, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2019:4233 (May 1, 2019).
10 Nadia Bernaz, Business and Human Rights: History, Law and Policy—Bridging the Accountability Gap 257 (2017).
11 Richard Meeran, Tort Litigation Against Multinational Corporations for Violation of Human Rights: An Overview of the Position Outside the United States, 3 U. Hong Kong L. Rev. 3 (2011).
12 Enneking, supra note 6, at 132–33; Meeran, supra note 11, at 3–4.
13 Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of Dec. 12, 2012 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Recast), 2012 OJ (L 351) 1.
14 Case 26/62, Van Gen en Loos v. Administratie der Belastingen, 1963 ECR 1; Case 6/64, Flaminio Costa v. ENEL, 1964 ECR 585.
15 Case C-281/02, Owusu v. Jackson, 2005 ECR I-1383.
16 Brussels-I Regulation, supra note 13, Art. 4(1).
17 Id. Art. 62.
18 There is no hierarchy between these criteria; in cases where these are not in the same place, claimants can choose where to file the suit.
19 Id. Art. 6(1).
20 These rules have been categorized in an authoritative study by Professor Arnaud Nuyts in preparation of the European Commission's recasting process of the Brussels-I Regulation. See Arnaud Nuyts, Study on Residual Jurisdiction, General Report (2007), available at http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/news/docs/study_residual_jurisdiction_ en.pdf.
21 Id., para. 16.
22 Marx et al., supra note 4, at 18.
23 The others are Ireland and Cyprus. Malta is generally considered a mixed system.
24 Brussels-I Regulation, supra note 13, Art. 4(1).
25 Compare Connelly v. RTZ Corporation plc [1997] UKHL 30, with Lubbe & others v. Cape plc., [2000] UKHL 41.
26 It should be noted that other EU member states generally do not recognize forum non conveniens in their domestic laws.
27 Civil Procedure Rules (1998), Rule 1(1)(c), S.I. 1998/3132, RSC Order 11.
28 [2017] EWCA (Civ) 1528.
29 [2018] EWCA (Civ) 191.
30 [2018] EWCA (Civ) 1532.
31 See Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605; Chandler v. Cape Plc [2011] EWHC 951 (QB).
32 Ekaterina Aristova, Tort Litigation Against Transnational Corporations in the English Courts: The Challenge of Jurisdiction, 14 Utrecht L. Rev. 19–21 (2018).
33 Lungowe v. Vedanta Resources plc [2019] UKSC 20.
34 Id., paras. 79–87.
35 Id., paras. 88–101.
36 Gerechtshof Den Haag, ECLI:NL:GHDA:2015:3586, 3587, 3588 (Dec. 18, 2015) [hereinafter Akpan].
37 Rechtbank Den Haag, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2019:4233 (May 1, 2019) [hereinafter Kiobel].
38 Code of Civil Procedure (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering), Art. 7(b).
39 Akpan, supra note 36, paras. 2.3-2.4; Kiobel, supra note 37, para. 4.27.
40 AAA v. Unilever [2018] EWCA (Civ) 1532, paras. 168–71.
41 As in the Kiobel case, supra note 37.
42 See generally Lucas Roorda & Cedric Ryngaert, Business and Human Rights Litigation in Europe and Canada: The Promises of Forum of Necessity Jurisdiction, 80 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 783 (2016).
43 Id.; see also Chilenye Nwapi, Jurisdiction by Necessity and the Regulation of the Transnational Corporate Actor, 30 Utrecht J. Int'l & Eur. L. 24 (2014).