INDIREKTNI PRISTUP ODGOVORNOSTI PRIVREDNIH SUBJEKATA U SVETLU PRAKSE EVROPSKOG SUDA ZA LJUDSKA PRAVA

  • Vesna Ćorić, PhD Naučni saradnik, Institut za uporedno pravo
  • Ana Knežević Bojović, PhD Naučni saradnik, Institut za uporedno pravo
Ključne reči: odgovornost privrednih subjekata, ESLJP, povreda ljudskih prava, horizontalno dejstvo, pozitivne obaveze država

Apstrakt

Sudska praksa Evropskog suda za ljudska prava (ESLJP) u vezi sa zaštitom ljudskih prava pravnih lica, uključujući i privredne subjekte, je dobro razvijena i analizirana u pravnoj literaturi. Međunarodno pravo ljudskih prava se razvija u pravcu uspostavljanja pravila i prakse utvrđivanja odgovornosti za povrede ljudskih prava ne samo u odnosu na države, već i odgovornosti drugih pravnih lica, naročito privrednih subjekata. Autorke u ovom radu analiziraju način na koji je ESLJP u svojoj sudskoj praksi konceptualizovao odgovornost privrednih subjekata za povredu ljudskih prava. U radu autorke ukazuju na to da je u svojoj dosadašnjoj praksi ESLJP uglavnom pristupao odgovornosti privrednih subjekata i ukazivao na potrebu regulisanja aktivnosti poslovnih subjekata na nacionalnom nivou kroz primenu doktrine horizontalnog dejstva prava zajemčenih Evropskom konvencijom o ljudskim pravima (Drittwirkung) i doktrine pozitivnih obaveza država. Autorke potom iznose stav da je ESLJP na taj način u svojoj praksi propustio da u punoj meri uzme u obzir opšte tendencije u razvoju društvenih odnosa i politika, te da bi zapravo trebalo da preuzme proaktivnu ulogu u konceptualizaciji svog pristupa i postupanja u slučajevima povrede ljudskih prava od strane privrednih subjekata.

Reference

Alkema E.A., “The Third-Party Applicability or ‘Drittwirkung’ of the European Convention on Human Rights”, In: Protecting Human Rights: the European Dimensions/ Protection des dro its de l’Homme: la dimension européenne: Studies in honour of/ Mélange en l’honn eur de Gérard J. Wiarda (eds. F. Matscher, H. Petzold), Carl Heymanns Verlag KG, Berlin 19902, 33-57.

Fasciglione, M., “Corporate Liability, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and the Future of the Alien Tort Claims Act: Some Remarks After Kobel”, Diritti Umani e Diritto Internazionale, Società editrice il Mulino, Vol. 7, 2/2013, 401-435.

Garlicki, L., “Relations between Private Actors and the ECHR”, in: The Constitution in Private Relations (eds. A. Sajó, and R. Uitz), Eleven International Publishing, Utrecht 2005, 129-144.

Khoury, S., “Transnational Corporations and the European Court of Human Rights: Reflections on the Indirect and Direct Approaches to Accountability”, Sortuz, Oñati Journal of Emergent Socio-Legal Studies, Volume 4, 1/2010, 68-110.

Spielmann, D., “Companies in the Strasbourg Courtroom”, Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 5, 3/2016, 404-417.

Vasquez, C.M., “Direct vs. Indirect Obligations of Corporations under International Law”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Volume 43, 2005, 927-959.

Verdonck, L., “How the European Court of Human Rights evaded the Business and Human Rights Debate in Özel v. Turkey”, The Turkish Commercial Law Review, Vol. 2, 2016, 111-118.

Višekruna, A., “Protection of Rights of Companies before the European Court of Human Rights“, in: Procedural Aspects of EU Law (D. Duić, T. Petrašević), Faculty of Law Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek 2017, 111-126.

Legal sources

Özel and Others v. Turkey, App. Nos. 14350/05, 15245/05 and 16051/05, Judgement of 17 November 2015

Guerra v. Italy, App. No. 116/1996/735/932, Judgement of 19 February 1998

Lopez Ostra v. Spain, App. No. 16798/90, Judgement of 9 December 1994

Budayeva v. Russia, App. Nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, Judgement of 20 March 2008

Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, App. Nos. 17423/05, 20534/05, 20678/05, 23263/05, 24283/05 and 35673/05, Judgement of 28 February 2012

Köpke v. Germany, App. No. 420/07, Decision of 5 October 2010

López Ribalda and Others v. Spain, App. No. 1874/13 and 8567/13, Judgement of 9 January 2018, Referral to the Grand Chamber, 28 May 2018

Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland, App. No. 931/13, Judgement of 27 June 2017, Grand Chamber

Rantsev v. Cypres and Russia, App. No. 25965/04, Judgement of 7 January 2010

Siliadin v. France, App. No. 73316/01, Judgement of 26 October 2005

Marckx v. Belgium, App. No. 6833/74, Judgement of 13 June 1979

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., Decision of the United States Supreme Court, 569 US 108 (2013)

Vgt Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, App. No. 24699/94, Judgement of 28 June 2001

Vilnes and Others v. Norway, App. Nos. 52806/09 and 22703/10, Judgement of 5 December 2013

Resolution A/HRC/26/L.22/Rev.1 for the “Elaboration of an international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights”

Website references

Khoury, S., Whyte, D., New Mechanisms of Accountability for Corporate Violations of Human Rights, www.livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3001783/1/New%20mechanisms%20of%20accountability%20for%20corporate%20violations%20of%20human%20rights.pdf , last visited 1 December 2018.

Objavljeno
2019-03-28
Sekcija
Originalni naučni rad