Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Abuses A Guide for Victims and NGOs on Recourse Mechanisms

FIDH – Fédération Internationale pour les Droits Humains FIDH Logotype
  • Before you read
  • The guide
    1. Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Abuses: Content of the Guide
    2. Judicial Mechanisms
    3. Extraterritorial Criminal Liability of Multinational Corporations for Human Rights Violations
    4. Extraterritorial Criminal Liability of European-based Multinational Corporations
      1. Applying the principle of corporate criminal liability
      2. Overview of the national laws of EU Member States
      3. Determining a court’s extraterritorial jurisdiction
      4. Additional resources and relevant legislation
  • Beyond the guide
Search

Additional resources and relevant legislation

For a comparison of the criminal liability regimes in place in Europe

  • H. de Doelder and K. Tiedemann, La criminalisation du comportement collectif, Kluwer, 1996.
  • S. Geeroms, “La responsabilité pénale des personnes morales: une étude comparative”, Rev. int. dr. comp., 1996.
  • Association Henri Capitant des Amis de la Culture juridique française, La responsabilité, aspects nouveaux, Tome L, L.G.D.J., 1999.
  • M. Wagner, “Corporate Criminal Liability – National and International Responses”, Background paper for the International Society for the Reform of Criminal law – 13 th International Conference Commercial and Financial Fraud: A Comparative Perspective, Malta, 8-12 July 1999
  • M. Delmas-Marty and J.A.E. Vervaele (dir.), La mise en œuvre du Corpus Iuris dans les États Membres, Vol.1., Antwerp/Groningen/Oxford, Intersentia, 2000.
  • S. Adam, N. Colette-Basecqz and M. Nihoul, La responsabilité pénale des personnes morales en Europe – Corporate Criminal Liability in Europe, Bruxelles/Bruges, La Charte/Die Keure, 2008.

On the recognition of corporate criminal liability in EU member states

  • Austria: VbVG Verbandsverantwortlichkeitsgesetz (The federal law on the liability of organisations in criminal matters) for violations committed since 1 January 2006. See also M. Hilf, “La responsabilité pénale des personnes morales en Autriche – Le régime de la nouvelle loi autrichienne sur la responsabilité des entreprises” in La responsabilité pénale des personnes morales en Europe / S. Adam (dir.), N. Colette-Basecqz and M. Nihoul, La Charte, Bruxelles, 2008.
  • Belgium: Art. 5 of the Belgian Criminal Code, established by the Law of 4 May 1999 creating corporate criminal liability (M.B., 22 June 1999, p. 2341). This law entered into force on 2 July 1999.
  • Estonia: Art. 14 and 37 of the new Criminal Code of 2002.
  • Finland: Section 9 of the Criminal Code (following the reform of 1 September 1995 (1995/743).
  • France: Art. 121-2 of the new Criminal Code, which entered into force on 1 March 1994. It was recently modified by the Law of 9 March 2004.
  • The Netherlands: See art. 51 of the Nederlandse wetboek van strafrecht (Dutch Criminal Code), Introduced by the Law of 22 June 1950 on economic crime, and revised by the Law of 23 June 1976. See also J. D’Haenens, “Sanctions pénales et personnes morales”, Rev. dr. Pén. Crim., 1975. J. Vervaele, “La responsabilité pénale de et au sein de la personne morale aux Pays-Bas. Entre pragmatisme et dogmatisme juridique”, Rev. sc. crim. (Fr.), 1997, liv. 2, p. 325-346. D. Roeff, T. De Roos, “De strafrechetlijke aansprakelijkheid van de rechtspersoon in Nederland: rechtstheoretische beschouwingen bij enkele praktische knelpunten”, in X., De strafrechelijke en civielrechtelijke aansprakelijkheid van de rechtspersoon en zijn bestuurders, Anvers, Intersentia, Série ’Ius Commune Europeanum’, No 25, 1998, p. 49-121. A. De Nauw and F. Deruyck, “De Strafrechtelijke verantwoordelijkheid van rechtspersonen”, R.W., 2000, p. 897-898.

On the principle of universal jurisdiction

  • FIDH, “FIDH Paper on Universal Jurisdiction – A Step by Step Approach to the Use of Universal Jurisdiction in Western European States”, June 2009,
    http://www.fidh.org
  • FIDH, Fostering a European Approach to Accountability for Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes and Torture, April 2007,
    http://www.fidh.org
  • Open Society Justice Initiative, Trial, Universal Jurisdiction Law and Practice Studies, https://www.justiceinitiative.org/publications/universal-jurisdiction-law-and-practice-france/

In EU member states

  • Germany: Para. 6 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Criminal Code). See also Section 1 of the Code of Crimes against International Law (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch or VStGB), adopted on 30 June 2002. G. Werle and F. Jessberger, “International Criminal Justice is coming Home: The new German Code of Crimes against International Law”, Criml. L. F., 2002, 191, p. 214. This Code is a model and could serve as a source of inspiration for other European countries. M. Delmas-Marty, “Le droit pénal comme éthique de la mondialisation”, R. S. C., 2004, p. 8. Prosecution in ab sentia is permitted, but only with the goal of preserving evidence for a possible future trial. (StPO §276, StPO §285 (1).
  • Austria: Para. 64 (64.1 to 64.8) and 65 of the Strafgesetzbuch or StGB (Criminal Code). With regard to genocide in particular, universal jurisdiction is granted by jurisprudence. See International Law Association, “Final Report on the exercise of Universal jurisdiction in respect of gross human rights offences”, prepared report by M. Kamminga, 2000, p. 24.
  • Belgium: Art. 12bis of Chapter II of Title 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (replaced by the Law of 18 July 2001 and amended by the Law of 5 August 2003 (entered into force on 7 August 2003) and Article 378 of the Law Programme of 22 December 2003 (entered into force on 31 December 2003)). See also Art. 6, 3-10, al. 1-4 and Art. 10 quater of Title 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
  • Denmark: Strfl. § 8(1) (5) and Sections 2, 5(2) and 6 of the Military Criminal Code (Act. No. 216 of April 1973).
  • Spain: Art. 23.4 of the LOPJ of 1 July 1985.
  • Finlande: Section 7 – Chapter 1 of the Criminal Code (amended by 650/2003).
  • France: Art. 689-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Cassation or 26 March 1996, Bull. crim., No. 132.
  • Greece: Art. 8h and 8k of the Criminal Code.
  • Ireland: Section 3 of the Irish Law on the Geneva Conventions, 1962, which was amended by the Law on the Geneva Conventions of 1998; Sections 2 and 3 of the Irish Law of 2000 on criminal justice (United Nations Convention against Torture).
  • Italy: Art. 7(5) of the Criminal Code. With regard to torture, see also Article 3(1)(c) of Law No. 498 of 3 November 1988 (Legge 3 novembre 1988, n°498) and Article 10 of the Criminal Code (Legge 9 ottobre 1967, n°962).
  • Luxembourg: Art. 10 of the Law of 9 January 1985 on the Repression of Serious Violations of the International Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. (Mém. A Nº 2 of 25 January 1985, p.24); Art. 1 of the Law of 2 August 1947 on the Repression of War Crimes (Mém.1947. 755-Pas. 1947. 500); Art. 7-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in combination with Art. 260-1 to 260-4 of the Criminal Code and Art. 7-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See also Articles (4) and 5-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Art. 163, 169, 170, 177, 178, 187-1, 192-1, 192-2, 198, 199, 199bis, and 368 to 382 of the Criminal Code. See also Art. 6 of the Law of 8 August 1985 on the Repression of Genocide.
  • The Netherlands: Sections 2(1)(a) and (c) and 2(3) of the Law on International Crimes, adopted on 19 June 2003 and entered into force on 1 October 2003.
  • Portugal: Art. 5 § 2 of the Criminal Code. See also Art. 5 para. 1 (b) and Art. 239 para. 1 of the Criminal Code.
  • Sweden: Chapter 2, section 3 (6) and chapter 22, section 6 of the Criminal Code. See also chapter 2, section 3(7) of the Criminal Code in combination with Law (1964/169) on the Repression of Genocide.
  1. Extraterritorial Criminal Liability of European-based Multinational Corporations
  2. Hierarchy and subsidiarity in the principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction
  3. Extraterritorial Criminal Liability of Multinational Corporations before US Courts