The Human Rights Of Companies

The Izmir Conference

By HRC Correspondent, 29 April 2011

European ministers have been pushing ahead with plans to ease the case load of the European Court of Human Rights.

At the end of April, European ministers concluded a two-day conference in the Turkish city of Izmir where they committed to further examine and attempt to streamline the Court's application procedure.

That has included a discussion focused around Article 34 of the Court's founding document, the European Convention on Human Rights, which allows both individuals and companies to bring cases before the Court because it ensures that complaints can be brought by “any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals”.

A statement at the close of the conference saw delegates "reaffirm" that they saw this right as a "cornerstone of the Convention mechanism", a move welcomed by NGOs which had called for individual application to be protected in any efforts to reduce the Court's caseload.

The conference, which builds on a similar meeting last year at Interlaken, also gave the opportunity for states to air some of their grievances with the Court.

Kenneth Clarke, the UK's justice secretary, called for reforms and made reference to Britain's displeasure over the Court's ruling that prisoners be allowed to vote.

Over the last few months the British public has become increasingly familiar with the Convention, mainly over the issues of voting rights for prisoners and superinjunctions.

An article published on The Sun's website at the time of conference claimed that the "hated European human rights act" costs the UK more than £9bn a year and explained the law as being "used by celebs to hide their secrets behind superinjunctions".

But as this website testifies, the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention's 59 articles go much further, allowing companies to bring cases over freedom of expression, lack of due process and violations of property rights.

Belgian broadcaster wins right to speak out

By HRC Correspondent, April 24 2011

Belgium’s RTBF has finally won a 10-year legal battle against state interference with the broadcaster's right to freedom of expression.

Back in 2001, the company produced a programme examining patients’ rights for its show Au Nom de la Loi which contained allegations of malpractice by a neurosurgeon.

The doctor sought an injunction and the Brussels Court of First Instance granted an interim ban on the programme while it decided on the merits of the case.  RTBF lost on appeal and the case was adjourned and still pending when RTBF lodged its complaint with the European Court of Human Rights five years later.

RTBF’s submission to the Court argued violations of Article 10 - the right to freedom of expression, and Article 6(1) - the right of access to the courts. Both were upheld in Strasbourg.

Unsurprisingly, Article 10 has been a mainstay for media companies and the Court has consistently afforded them broad protection.

But Article 10 also covers commercial speech and is open to application by a broader range of companies. The Court made that clear in Autronic v Switzerland in 1990, ruling that protection for freedom of speech "applies to everyone whether natural or legal persons" and includes "profit-making corporate bodies".

Autronic is a Swiss electronics group that at the time specialised in satellite dishes and sought permission to tansmit a Soviet TV programme. The authority said that it needed the "express approval of the Soviet authorities". Autronic complained that the free reception of communications intended for the general public was made subject to the broadcasting State's approval.

Last year, the court upheld 55 complaints of violations of the right to freedom of expression, at least five of which were brought by companies.

Round up for March at the European Court

By HRC correspondent. April 7 2011

The European Court of Human Rights ruled on three significant corporate cases in March, two about protection of property and one concerning freedom of expression and access to the courts.

Romania was found to have breached Protocol 1, Article 1, the right to protection of property, in the case of Granitul, a Romanian company, which had more than 60 hectares of land taken from it without compensation to form part of the government's Giurgiu Free Zone. The question of compensation was left for a later date.

Cypriot company Forminster was awarded 4,000 euros for costs and expenses in its case against the Czech Republic, likewise over a violation of Protocol 1, Article 1.

The court had already ruled in October 2008 that there had been a violation of property after the Czech government seized shares, bought by Forminster, in a company where an executive was under criminal investigation.  Just Satisfaction was delayed then, but the award was made in March.

Both land and shares qualify under Protocol 1, Article 1, which states that every "natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions".

The court traditionally interprets possessions broadly, acknowledging in Anheuser-Busch inc v Portugal in 2007 that possessions are "not limited to ownership of physical goods".

Elsewhere, Belgian French-language television broadcaster RTBF had brought a complaint after the Belgian government banned in 2001 the broadcasting of an investigation into patients' rights. Belgian courts had imposed a temporary injunction while they examined a complaint made by a doctor featured in the programme. RTBF alleged breaches of Article 10, the right to freedom of expression, and Article 6(1), the right of access to the courts.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled there had been violations of both.

In the case of Article 6(1), while RTBF had been able to take its case to Belgium’s Court of Cassation, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the degree of access afforded had not been enough to secure the broadcaster its right.