Feb 12, 2021 | Cases, News
Today, the ICJ and The Corporate Responsibility (CORE) Coalition UK, welcomed the judgment of the UK Supreme Court in the case Okpabi et al. v Royal Dutch Shell plc et al as a major step forward for those seeking access to justice for corporate abuses in the Niger Delta and around the world.
The Supreme Court judgment allows the case to proceed in the UK courts, reversing earlier decisions by the Court of Appeal and the High Court, and reaffirming the precedent established in its own previous decision in Lungowe et al v Vedanta resources (2019).
Carlos Lopez, Senior Legal Advisor at the ICJ, said:
“The emphasis of the Supreme Court on the relevance of evidence from internal company documents is of utmost importance for the proper assessment of whether the parent company intervened, advised or controlled the relevant activities of its subsidiary that caused harm, including notably human rights abuses and environmental destruction.
“This should have an impact on future similar proceedings before courts in the UK and elsewhere.”
Mark Dearn, Director of CORE, said:
“This landmark ruling is a vital step towards justice for some 50,000 claimants from the Ogale and Bille communities. It sends a clear message to multinational corporations like Shell – you have a duty of care and you will be held to account for human rights abuses and environmental damage caused by subsidiaries you control.
“Shell brazenly claimed in court that the oil spills were due to ‘uniquely Nigerian problems’. But the unique problem long faced by communities in this region is Shell’s impunity, as it has repeatedly tried to dodge accountability for its catastrophic destruction of the environment and people’s livelihoods.”
“It’s now crucial that governments step up to the plate to create new corporate accountability laws so that businesses know exactly what is expected of them.”
In Vedanta, the Court affirmed that a parent company that sufficiently intervenes, controls or advises the relevant operations of its subsidiary may bear liability for the breach of its duty of care towards the people affected by those operations.
Okpabi and other nearly 50,000 claimants in total – sued Royal Dutch Shell (RDS -the UK based parent company) and its Nigerian subsidiary Shell Petroleum Development Corporation (SPDC) for their alleged involvement in the leakage of oil pipelines which destroyed their farming land, wiped out fish stocks and poisoned drinking water in the Niger Delta, Nigeria.
In 2018 the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimants’ case, but the claimants appealed to the Supreme Court. The ICJ and the CORE Coalition intervened before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has allowed the claim to proceed, focusing on whether the claim had a real prospect of success and the high relevance of the internal company documents for a proper assessment.
Find the judgment here.
Notes to Editors:
- This case was first launched in 2015 in the UK High Court. For a timeline of the case’s passage through the UK court system, see here.
- The ICJ and CORE Coalition submitted a legal brief to the Supreme Court setting out the applicability of comparative law and standards regarding companies’ responsibilities in relation to human rights and environmental protection. These standards showed that Royal Dutch Shell PLC (Shell) could have duty of care in relation to the communities affected by its Nigerian subsidiary’s activities.
- In 2018 the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimants’ case, ruling that Shell did not exercise sufficient control over its subsidiary SPDC for Shell possibly to hold a duty of care towards those affected by the oil spills.
- The Supreme Court judgment reverses that judgment, cautioning against dismissing such claims in “mini-trials” without proper access to all relevant facts and evidence that are in great part in the power of the company. The judgment clarifies the evidential threshold needed for the courts to hear such cases in the UK: “The resolution of the jurisdictional challenge depended upon whether the appellants’ claim satisfied the summary judgment test of real prospect of success.” (para 127 ref. Vedanta at para 45)
- In another section the Court also corrected the Court of Appeal’s view that the promulgation by a parent company of group wide policies or standards can never in itself give rise to a duty of care, saying: “that is inconsistent with Vedanta. Group guidelines … may be shown to contain systemic errors which, when implemented as of course by a particular subsidiary, then cause harm to third parties.” (para 143)
- In Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc, which CORE and the ICJ similarly filed a joint intervention, the Supreme Court ruled that a duty of care was owed by the UK parent company, Vedanta. A settlement was subsequently reached. As the Supreme Court notes, this ruling was “very relevant to both the procedural and the substantive issues raised on this [Okpabi v Shell] appeal”.
Jan 15, 2021 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and Amnesty International have submitted today to the European Court of Human Rights their intervention in the case of Judge Igor Tuleya who alleges that the seven disciplinary proceedings brought against him have affected his reputation as a judge and undermine the authority of the judiciary.
Judge Igor Tuleya contests that the disciplinary proceedings brought against him were in violation of his right to respect for private life and of his right to an effective remedy against violation of human rights.
The case takes place in the context of the “reform” of the judiciary in Poland, involving policy measures and legislative changes approved between late 2015 and 2020, which have seriously compromised the independence of the judiciary.
The intervention focuses on three main issues:
- The scope of application of Article 8 and Article 13 in cases relating to disciplinary proceedings against judges, in light of international standards on disciplinary proceedings and measures and effective domestic remedies; of the Court’s Convention jurisprudence; and of general principles on the rule of law and the role and independence of the judiciary.
- The situation of the independence of the judiciary in Poland as the context in which to assess the application of Articles 8 and 13.
- The scope of Article 10 as applied to judges, including those engaged in the administration of the judiciary.
ECtHR-AmicusBrief-Tuleya_v_Poland-Advocacy-Legal-Submission-2020-ENG (download the third party intervention)
Nov 2, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ submitted today a third party intervention to the European Court of Human Rights in a key case challenging the independence of the Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of Poland’s Supreme Court.
In the case of Reczkowicz and Others v. Poland, the European Court of Human Rights will consider whether the recently established Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of the Supreme Court of Poland may be considered an “independent and impartial tribunal” in order to satisfy the requirements of the right to a fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
In its third party intervention, the International Commission of Jurists has submitted that a court cannot be considered as independent whenever the body that has appointed its members lacks guarantees of independence from the executive and legislative powers as enshrined in standards of the Council of Europe and the United Nations, including that at least half of its members be judges elected by their peers.
It further concluded that a court composed by judges appointed by a non-independent body or via a non-independent procedure will not be capable of constituting an independent and impartial tribunal under article 6 ECHR.
Poland- ECtHR-Reczkowicz and Others v Poland – TPI – ICJ – 2020 -ENG (download the third party intervention)
Oct 27, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and Amnesty International have presented today a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the premature dismissal of Judge Waldemar Zurek from his position in the National Judicial Council.
In the case Zurek v. Poland, the ICJ and Amnesty International presented submissions on the scope of application of the right to a fair trial under Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in cases relating to the role of an independent judiciary and its members through self-governance mechanisms (such as the National Council of the Judiciary) in light of international standards on judicial councils, judicial appointments, the judicial career and security of tenure; of the Court’s Convention jurisprudence; and of general principles on the rule of law and the role and independence of the judiciary.
They further submitted obervations on the scope of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR as applied to judges, including those engaged in the administration of the judiciary.
ECtHR-AmicusBrief-Zurek_v_Poland-Advocacy-Legal-Submission-2020-ENG (download the third party intervention)
Sep 14, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and ECRE intervened today before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the extradition of a Kyrgyz national of Uzbek ethnicity back to his country of origin where he would be at risk of torture or other forms of ill-treatment .
In their submissions, the ICJ and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) analysed thenon-refoulement obligations of the Russian Federation under international human rights law in relation to the consideration of evidence to assess the substantial grounds to believe that a concerned person will face real risk of a serious human rights violation; and the use of diplomatic assurances purportedly to protect against torture and other serious human rights violations in light of international law.
The two NGOs also provided the Court with an update on the legal framework governing extraditions from the Russian Federation to Central Asian States, in particular Kyrgyzstan, as well as Russia’s extradition practice. They concluded that the analysis of the law and practice revealed a number of critical human rights deficits.
They submitted that the lack of respect for the procedural aspect of the principle of non-refoulement, the consequent ineffectiveness of domestic remedies in this regard, in the Russian Federation, and the abysmal record of Kyrgyzstan in upholding its obligation to respect and protect the prohibition of torture or other ill-treatment mean that extraditions from the Russian Federation to Kyrgyzstan entail a high risk of violations of both substantive and procedural aspects of the principle of non-refoulement.
These submissions are an update of the third party intervention submitted by the ICJ before the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on 22 September 2016. The Chamber had ruled that no risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulement existed in the case but the judgment is now subject to the review of the Grand Chamber.
ECtHR-TK and others v Russia-GC-ICJECRE-Final (download the third party intervention)
Jul 28, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions, News
The ICJ intervened today in the case of the potential surveillance by Polish secret services of Mikołaj Pietrzak, lawyer and chair of the Warsaw Bar Association, Dominika Bychawska-Siniarska et Barbara Grabowska-Moroz of the Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights, and Wojciech Klicki and Katarzyna Szymielewicz of the foundation Panoptykon.
The five applicants applied to the European Court of Human Rights claiming a violation of their rights to privacy and to an effective remedy because the system of secret surveillance and collection of metadata created by the Law amending the Law of the Police of 15 January 2016 and the Anti-Terrorism Law of 16 June 2016 does not provide sufficient guarantees for this rights’ protection.
In its third party intervention, the ICJ addressed (1) the application of the principles of prescription by law, necessity and proportionality, in circumstances when mass and targeted surveillance interferes with the right to respect for private life under Article 8 ECHR, in particular when it affects lawyers and human rights defenders; (2) the obligations of States under Article 8 and 6 ECHR to ensure respect for the confidentiality of lawyer-client relations and the principle of legal professional privilege.
The ICJ argued that secret surveillance, in particular where it interferes with the confidentiality of communications of lawyers and human rights defenders, and endangers lawyer-client privilege protected under Articles 8 and 6 ECHR, should be subject to specific safeguards and to particularly strict scrutiny of its necessity and proportionality.
The third party intervention can be found here: PIetrzak&HF_v_Poland-AmicusCuriae-ECtHR-Cases-2020-ENG
