ECCHR!

CASES
EuropEan CasEs DatabasE
I. Introduction
1. Objective ECCHR European Cases Database
The European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) aims to protect human rights by legal means and to hold those responsible for human rights violations legally accountable. Our task is to resolve human rights violations, give victims access to legal remedies, and provide them with compensation and justice. Traditional conceptualizations focus on the human rights violations of states. In todays world, however, human rights are increasingly endangered by other actors, such as transnational corporations1, and thus become subject to public debate. Nowadays, the earnings of several transnational corporations exceed the GDP of some states.2 Hence, these corporations become increasingly powerful and challenge states in certain core dimensions. Particularly in regions with political and economical instabilities, transnational corporations can have a substantial impact on economic, ecological, political, social and cultural spheres. This impact often includes the violation of political and civil as well as economical, social and cultural human rights. In the opinion of ECCHR, other civil society organizations and parts of academia, legal responsibilities arise from the actual power of transnational corporations. The responsibility to respect human rights is independent of the obligations of states3, as John Ruggie, Special Representative of the UN SecretaryGeneral on Business and Human Rights, stressed in his recent report.4 As a European organization, ECCHR aims to identify human rights violations of European corporations and tries to hold these corporations responsible for their actions. Prerequisites for the successful use of legal instruments against transnational corporation and board members responsible for human rights violations is both a careful analysis of the legal situation in the affected jurisdictions and a systematic analysis of previous legal practice. Up to now, there were no attempts at the European level to systematically record and evaluate proceedings concerned with human rights violations of corporations with headquarters in Europe. Some databases record proceedings across Europe5, but these databases neither record all proceedings, nor do they provide an analysis of the proceedings. The present study of ECCHR aims to remedy this unsatisfactory situation. However, our intention is not to permanently maintain and update this database, but rather to review and analyze previous legal work in order to learn lessons for future cases. The present study addresses the following questions: Are some European jurisdictions particularly suitable to hold transnational corporations legally responsible for human rights violations? Are there any particularly promising case-scenarios? What are the typical problems of holding transnational corporations legally accountable for their actions?

EUROPEAN CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS

2. Methodology
The European Cases Database comprises all cases which were made known through publications and inquiries at human rights organizations, and which comply with the following criteria: a) The cases are concerned with human rights violations committed by transnational corporations or their employees. b) The cases are related to Europe. c) The cases entail at least one lawsuit.

We consider a human rights violation to be the violation of a right confirmed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economical, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights. Environmental crimes are recorded as far as they constitute human rights violations, for instance, if they affect the right to life and physical integrity.6 A relation to Europe is given if proceedings take place under the jurisdiction of a European country, for instance a French criminal court. A relation to Europe is also given if one of the Parties involved (plaintiff or respondent) is European, if a legal entity (for instance a transnational corporation) has its headquarters in Europe, or if the action in question took place in Europe. The restriction of the database to European proceedings can be explained by the fact that ECCHR is a European organization and that US-American academia (besides Europe, the US is the second focal point of the legal debate about human rights violations of transnational corporations) deals much more intensively with current US-proceedings. Proceedings comprise both national proceedings (criminal proceedings, civil proceedings etc.) and international proceedings (for instance under the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea). Although so-called soft law mechanisms, for instance the OECD- complaints, are quite similar to regular court proceedings; they are not proceedings in the proper meaning of the word and are therefore not recorded. It is common practice that one case entails multiple proceedings consecutively or even in parallel with one another. This is possible if victims and supportive organizations take different legal actions and/or take legal actions in multiple jurisdictions. The so-called Mercedes Benz-Case, concerned with the disappearance of several trade unionists during the military dictatorship in Argentina, exemplifies this practice. This case entailed three proceedings: a criminal proceeding in Argentina, a criminal proceeding in Germany and a civil proceeding in the US.

All proceedings are recorded by means of a coherent scheme in order to guarantee a basic level of comparability despite obvious heterogeneities in regard to jurisdictions and cases. Hence, in each case the affected jurisdiction and the respective field of law are listed separately. The actual case is displayed in its different proceedings, and despite the scarcity of sources (in some cases only secondary sources were available), the European Cases Database provides legal analyses and legal outlooks. All cases are supplemented with file names and official case names in order to enable practitioners and the interested public to easily use the database. This applies to the list of sources as well. All publicly available sources, for instance published verdicts, academic essays, information of cooperating lawyers and civil society organizations, reports of human rights organizations and media coverage, have been used in order to record as many proceedings as possible. As already mentioned, in some cases only secondary sources were available wherefore it was not always possible to verify testimony of third Parties by means of court documents. References are provided for all information in order to make the study as traceable and transparent as possible.

II. Analysis
The following analysis provides an overview of Europe-related proceedings against transnational corporations on the basis of human rights violations. Subsequently, typical patterns of human rights violations through transnational corporations will be revealed. The ECCHR European Cases Database provides further information in regard to each case.7 Currently8, the European Cases Database is comprised of 69 lawsuits, which can be assigned to 46 cases.

1. Number of Proceedings
As compared with numerous reports of civil society organizations about human rights violations of transnational corporations, 69 proceedings9 appear to be rather small in number.10

However, this number can partly be explained by considering class actions with up to ten thousand plaintiffs, for instance the English civil proceeding in the case Trafigura Beheer. In cases of class actions, many victims are represented in one proceeding. Unfortunately, the possibility of class actions is restricted or even absent in some European countries, such as in Germany.11

Europe. In Latin America and Europe, many environmentally-related human rights violations were documented.13

4. Thematic Focus of Proceedings

Thematically, the majority of cases can be assigned to one of three categories: (1) War crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity (most of them dealing with crimes committed under the Nazi regime from 1933-1945) (2) Cases concerning the environment (for instance: contamination of water and soil; genetically modified food) (3) Cases concerning labor (for instance: inhumane working conditions, persecution of trade unionists; child labor; forced labor)

2. Regional Focus of Proceedings

Even in European cases, the proceedings often take place in the US. The reason for this stems from the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), a US statute enacted in 1789.12 According to the ATCA, US district courts have jurisdiction over civil proceedings in which individuals assert violations of international (customary) law. Thereby, it is irrelevant where the human rights violation took place, as long as the violation is severe enough to constitute the perpetrator as an enemy of mankind, a hostis humani generis. After a long and progressive legal development in regard to responsibilities of individuals for human rights violations, the ATCA was for the first time extended to transnational corporations in the case Unocal/Burma (USA) 1997. In Europe, most proceedings against transnational corporations take place in the Netherlands, France, and Great Britain. However, it is difficult to conclude that this is due to a particularly beneficial legal situation in these jurisdictions. Whether or not a proceeding takes place is often due to the actors involved. Not all civil society representatives working on human rights and transnational corporations regard recourse to legal action to be the best approach. In some regions, the approach to enforce human rights by taking legal actions is simply more prominent than in others.

5. Patterns of Human Rights Violations

Three cases (Kouwenhouven, van Anraat, and Ndashykirwa & Nzabonimana) are concerned with war crimes regarding arms trade in armed conflicts. Outside of conflict situations, the right to life, and the right to liberty and the security of persons (Art. 2(5) ECHR; Art. 3 UDHR) are often violated through homicide, assault and battery. Health defects resulting from environmental pollution are also subsumed in this category.14 In regard to child labor, forced labor, disappearance of trade unionists, and inhumane working conditions, several human rights are violated: the Prohibition of Slavery / Forced Labor (Art. 4 ECHR; Art. 4 UDHR), the Prohibition of Torture / Inhuman and Degrading Treatment (Art. 3 ECHR; Art. 5 UDHR), the Principles of Equality (Art. 7, 14 ECHR; Art. 2, 23 UDHR), the Right to Rest and Leisure (Art. 24 UDHR), the Freedom of Movement and Residence, respectively the Protection against Disappearance (Art. 13 UDHR), the Freedom of Expression (Art. 10 ECHR; Art. 19 UDHR), and the Freedom of Assembly (Art. 11 ECHR; Art. 17 UDHR).

3. Regional Focus of Human Rights Violations

Apart from cases dealing with the Nazi regime (19331945), the majority of human rights violations took place in Africa, followed by Latin America and then

The Nestl-Case provides an extreme example for this pattern of human rights violations. According to representatives of the victims, Malian children were kidnapped and brought to Cote DIvoire, where they were violently forced to work on cacao plantations without payment. Hence, not only were the freedom of movement and residence and the protection against disappearance violated, but also the prohibition of slavery and forced labor.

a. Regarding criminal law, the legal situation is incoherent within Europe. In countries like Germany, it is generally impossible to initiate criminal proceedings against corporations as a whole, since German law does not provide for criminal responsibility of corporations. In Great Britain, corporations have a duty to report according to the 2003 Corporate Responsibility Act.16 Thus, corporations are obliged to report regularly about their business activities. In other countries, corporations have full criminal responsibility, for instance in Switzerland (Swiss Criminal Code) and Austria (Austrian Federal Code of Criminal Responsibility of Associations).17 However, even in these countries the regulations are often not applied. In Switzerland, there are three reasons for this. Firstly, corporate responsibility is secondary to individual responsibility. Secondly, the constituent element of organized irresponsibility has to be present. Thirdly, a lack of organization at the corporations headquarters has to be demonstrated.18 There must be legal evidence for all three elements. Moreover, law enforcement agencies are often hesitant to deal with these cases, so the claimant has to provide the evidence. This requires personal as well as organizational and financial resources, which claimants and their representatives do not have in most cases. b. Regarding civil law, there is no such law as the American Alien Tort Claims Act, connecting a liability in tort with violations of international law. Therefore, one has to revert to compensation rules from regular civil law, which are not adjusted to deal with transnational relations in general, and human rights problems in particular. Moreover, countries with a common law tradition have the problem of lengthy procedural struggles, due to the so-called Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine.19 On the basis of this doctrine, British and American courts often claimed to not be responsible in cases of human rights violation that took place on another states territory. Contrarily, civil law countries do not witness lengthy struggles for jurisdiction, as the question of juris-

6. Status Quo of the Proceedings

More than one half of the recorded cases are already closed, some of them just recently (for instance: the case Trafigura Beheer [Cote DIvoire] September 2008). The other proceedings are still pending, some already on appeal (for instance: the case Kouvenhoven, the Mercedes Benz case, the case Watermeters/ Johannesburg and the French case Total/ Gulf von Biskaya). The cases Neumann- Kaffee Group (Mubende), Aurul, AngloPlatinum, and Total/ Gulf of Biskaya are expected to be completed soon. The plaintiffs prospects of receiving financial compensation by taking legal action are rather small. Many proceedings are supported by developmental agencies, human rights organizations, and trade unions, for instance FIAN in the case Neumann/ Kaffee Group (Mubende). Apart from Greenpeace (in the cases Total/ Russia, Total/ Gulf of Biskaya, Euronav), civil society organizations did not appear themselves as plaintiffs.15 Next, typical problems of holding transnational corporations legally accountable for human rights violations will be analyzed.

7. Legal Situation and Implementation Insufficient in Europe

In Europe, the legal systems are not adjusted to deal with human rights violations of transnational corporations and it is thus difficult to adequately address them in legal fora. This is true for both civil proceedings and criminal proceedings.

diction is clearly structured by law. However, in countries like Germany, procedural regulations often foreclose the application of German law.20 Hence, the theoretical possibility of receiving compensation often has no practical relevance if the case is transnational in nature. Furthermore, recent European regulations regarding the question of which national law is applicable in cases in which several jurisdictions are concerned might worsen the plaintiffs situation. According to the Rome-II-Regulation,21 the law of the state in which the damage occurs is applicable, not the law of the state in which the damage was caused. Decisions leading to human rights violations are often taken in Europe, as transnational corporations have their headquarters in Europe. The actual human rights violations, however, occur in other countries, mostly in the global south. Consequently, the law of European countries is not applicable in these cases. Thus, recourse to legal actions becomes more difficult as legal regulations in the global south are often less strict than the regulations of European countries. It is difficult to predict how European regulations will impact the work of European courts.

This is true for the legal relation of a corporation and its suppliers, as well as the legal attribution of acts of subsidiary companies to the parent company. Germany, for instance, applies the so-called principle of separation, according to which parent companies and their subsidiaries are legally independent from each other. The parent company often refers to this principle when a daughter company of the transnational corporation commits a human rights violation. Despite the fact that European headquarters often fully control the subsidiaries and want consumers to perceive the entire company as one entity with uniform products, it is often impossible to legally attribute human rights violations of subsidiary companies in the global south to parent companies in Europe. However, the principle of separation does not apply regarding the relation of transnational corporations and their suppliers. Thus, it is easier to hold suppliers legally accountable than subsidiaries.

9. Difficulties in Attributing Legal Breaches in Cases Concerning the Environment

Cases concerning the environment are often problematic in regard to the attribution of breaches of duty. As in many cases, accidents caused environmental disasters which in turn caused physical injuries and the death of human beings (Total/ Gulf of Biskaya, Amoco Cadiz, Total/ France, Bayer/Peru, Boliden Shell/ Brazil, Aurul, Sellafield). In such cases, the proof of negligence of a corporation, respective to its employees, is crucially important (i.e. the attribution of breaches of duty.) In many cases, the duty to information (Sellafield-Case) or the duty of maintenance (Total/ France, Total/ Gulf of Biskaya, Boliden, Total/ Russia) is affected.

8. Proceedings against Individuals more Successful

Proceedings against individuals were more successful than proceedings against legal entities, like transnational corporations. Regarding criminal law, this is due to a lack in criminal responsibility of corporations in some European countries. In these countries, criminal responsibility applies to individuals only. Regarding civil law, it is often difficult to attribute harmful acts to the accused corporations. The socalled corporate veil, i.e. the complex corporate structure, effectively protects transnational corporations as it makes it extremely difficult to legally attribute responsibility for actions and decisions within a corporation. That makes it difficult to hold corporations liable for their actions.

10. Court-Imposed Sanctions

It is difficult to compare the scale of compensations and penalties as different legal systems provide for a different extent of compensations and penalties (sometimes just symbolically, for instance 680 Euros for each joint plaintiff in the Netherlands;

van Anraat-Case). Moreover, the magnitude of the violations differs from case to case and the number of plaintiffs in the case of class actions differs substantially. The transnational corporations Total,22 Bayer, and Shell-Group are not the only subjects of several public campaigns, but also appear at least five times in the recorded proceedings. These three corporations together are involved in more than one fourth of all recorded proceedings.23 The imposed penalties are insufficient to deter these corporations from further human rights violations. The case Total/ France extensively demonstrates this phenomenon. As a consequence of twelve years of inadequate maintenance, an explosion left six persons dead and one person badly injured. Those responsible for the accident were only sentenced to 18 months on probation and fined 4.500. The company Total, however, received 400 million US$ from its insurance as compensation for lost profits and to rebuild the destroyed facility.

human rights are regularly violated by private actors in the global economy. However, in these cases it is often impossible to take legal action when it comes to serious human rights violations (i.e. breaches of international criminal law.) Moreover, it is extremely difficult to assert violations of economical, social and cultural human rights. The guiding questions mentioned in the beginning can only partly be answered due to the limited number of proceedings. Undoubtedly, the main difficulties in the assertion of human rights violations are the attribution of human rights violations to corporations as well as the proof a culpable breach of duty. Even though the database reveals a regional accumulation of proceedings in Great Britain, the Netherlands and France, it is difficult to conclude that one European jurisdiction is particularly suitable to hold transnational corporations legally responsible for the liability of human rights violations. Even the proceedings that took place revealed difficulties and did not always end in adequate compensation for the victims. Moreover, there are not enough proceedings to draw statistical conclusions. The regional accumulation of proceedings is at least partly due to the strategies of the organizations involved, as some organizations prefer to take political rather than legal action. The ATCA proceedings in the US only partly mitigate the deficiencies in existing law. For two reasons, legal proceedings in the US do not provide an adequate and permanent remedy for the insufficient situation in Europe. Firstly, it is difficult to assert economical, social and cultural human rights in the US. Secondly, recent decisions of US courts indicate a shift in judicature in favor of transnational corporations. This unsatisfactory situation has to be improved through changes in European legal systems. Transnational corporations have to be legally accountable for human rights violations. The development of a uniform and coherent criminal law of corporations and enterprises would contribute to such efforts.

III. Conclusions
Currently, European legal systems do not provide comprehensive protection from human rights violations of transnational corporations. Moreover, the implementation of existing law through courts and law enforcement agencies is insufficient. Neither existing law nor law enforcement agencies and courts are adjusted to deal with human rights violations through compensation and criminal proceedings. The aforementioned difficulty in legally attributing harmful acts to European corporations demonstrates this problem. Traditional legal instruments have difficulties dealing with transnational business activities, diverse legal states of corporations, opaque corporate structures and complicated supplier conditions. European legal systems do not address Europes societal realities and the structures of a rapidly globalizing world economy. Traffic accidents and breaches of contract constitute everyday violations of rights leading to claims for compensations. Likewise,

In the future, it should not make a legal difference whether a corporation has its headquarters in Austria or Germany, as the unjustness of human rights violations remains the same. Furthermore, an insufficient legal situation and implementation should cause more and not less civil and criminal proceedings. Human rights violations of transnational corporations are not only political and social scandals, but also violate universally accepted norms. The violation of human rights norms has to have legal consequences for the perpetrators. Exemplary proceedings could contribute to strengthen the universality and justiciability of human rights. Human rights have to be enforced through national and international courts and forums, as transnational corporations operate globally. Only the restless prosecution of human rights violations sets important legal precedents and triggers academic discourse. Both elements contribute to a progressive develop-

ment of the law, and are therefore indispensible in tackling existing legal loopholes and insufficiencies. In particular, the enforcement of economical, social and cultural human rights should get more attention, as debates too often focus exclusively on international crimes. Moreover, the work on single cases enables victims of human rights violations to become prosecutors. This remains an important personal and political implication, despite the obvious shortcomings of current legal instruments. Proceedings concerned with human rights and the economy have to consider political and social strategies of the organizations involved. Legal instruments and legal actions can contribute to societal change, if they are coordinated with victims and social movements. Recourse to legal action in general and work on single cases in particular have the ability to demonstrate and exemplify general problems of society.

The term transnational corporation refers to a corpo-

According to the Washington Institute for Policy Studies,

ration with foreign branches and subsidiary companies. Transnational corporations are networks with multiple centers, which are mutually dependent but geographically dispersed. They are integrated by common strategies, norms and exchanges of information, experiences and resources (Quelle: Bundeszentrale fr politische Bildung: www.bpb.de/publikationen/TTRFX1,1,0, Globalisie-rung_ als_Chance_f%FCr_Wohlstand_und_Arbeitspl%E4tze. html). According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), there are currently around 79.000 transnational corpo-rations operating across the globe. (Quelle: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) World Investement Report 2008: Transnational Corporations and the Infrastructure Challenge, Seite XVI).

there are already more corporations than states among the worlds 100 largest economic entities (see Klaus Werner/ Hans Weiss: Das neue Schwarzbuch Markenfirmen Die Machenschaften der Weltkonzerne, 3rd edition, 2007, p. 62f.). In 2007, the earnings of Wal-Mart (378 billion $US), BP (291 billion $US) and Shell (256 billion $US) exceeded the GDP of South Africa (252 billion $US), Saudi-Arabia (376 billion $US), and Denmark (311 billion $US). Source: Wikipedia from 22.01.2009.
3

"The corporate responsibility to respect exists inde-

pendently of States' duties" (Report from the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General on Business and Human Rights: John Ruggie, Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights, 2008, Paragraph 5.).

Report des UN Special Representative on Business

12 13

Chapter 28, Section 1350 of the US Code. In Latin America: the cases Botina, Puma, Shell/

and Human Rights: John Ruggie, "Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights, A/HRC/8/5, 7 April 2008, available at www.reports-andmaterials.org/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf. An overview of the work of the UN Special Representative is available at: www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-docs-list-8Jan-2009.pdf.
5

Brasil, and Aventis/ Rhodia. In Europe: the cases Amoco Cadiz, Total/ Gulf of Biskaya, Aurul, and Sellafield. Asia shows relatively few cases of human rights violations, in spite of numerous reports about human rights violations, especially in local supplier factories. This is due to the fact that many transnational corporations operating in Asia have their headquarters in the US and not in Europe.
14

See for instance the database of the Business and

Human Rights Resource Centre, available at www.business-humanrights.org/Categories/Lawlawsuits/Lawsuitsregulatoryaction/LawsuitsSelectedcases, or the database of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University, available at www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre/projects/mchr/trans-hr-litigation.html.
6

In most cases, environmental pollution is caused by

contamination of soil, particularly through toxic waste, pesticides, and leaking pipelines (See: Total/ Russia, BP, Trafigura Beheer, ICI, and Aventis/ Rhodia), or contamination of water, for instance through damn failures, pesticides, or accidents of tankers (Amoco Cadiz, Total/ Gulf of Biskaya).
15 16

An overview of environmental crimes of transnational

corporations is provided in the following publication of Greenpeace International: Marcelo Futado, Von Hernandez, Eco Matser, Andreas Bernstorff, Um-weltverbrechen multinationaler Konzerne Zur Notwendigkeit einer internationalen bereinkunft zur Unternehmensverantwortung, Amsterdam 2002.
7

In the Sellafield-Case, Greenpeace is the respondent. Art. 3 in conjunction with Art. 5 of the 2003 Corporate

Responsibility Act, whose application is not impaired by the 2006 Companies Act.
17

According to the Austrian Federal Law of the Crimi-

nal Responsibility of Corporations, a corporation can be sanctioned if an individual belonging to the corporation committed criminal actions. The Austrian Federal Law of the Criminal Responsibility of Corporations distinguishes between two cases (Para. 2 and Para. 3, each in conjunction with Para. 1) triggering a responsibility of associations. However, the precondition for this is that the criminal action was committed in favor of the corporation, or that the criminal action violated duties of the corporation.
18

This document can be ordered via e-mail at ECCHR. November 2008. Civil proceedings (comprising common as well as civil

Please write an e-mail to info@ecchr.eu.

8 9

law countries) constitute more than half of all cases. This is due to the numerous ATCA-Cases. Criminal proceedings account for less than one third. The remaining proceedings account for 15 % of all recorded proceedings.
10

This applies to environmental degradation as well

(see: Greenpeace International: Marcelo Futado, Von Hernandez, Eco Matser, Andreas Bernstorff, Umweltverbrechen multinationaler Konzerne Zur Notwendigkeit einer internationalen bereinkunft zur Unternehmensverantwortung, Amsterdam 2002.)
11

The Syngenta-Case exemplifies this comprehensively,

in: Wolfgang Kaleck/ Miriam Saage-Maa: Transnationale Unternehmen vor Gericht ber die Gefhrdung der Menschenrechte durch europische Firmen in Lateinamerika, 2008, p. 97-99).
19

Class actions are taken by several plaintiffs against one

According to the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine,

or more respondents. The possibility to file class actions exists only in some countries, for instance in the US and Great Britain. In case of class actions, the US takes a legal decision unitarily for all plaintiffs. Thus, it is no longer necessary that each claimant provide full evidence for his affectedness. Claimants only have to prove an affiliation to the affected group. Decisions are legally binding for all participants of the class action. However, the option of taking class actions does not exist in Germany and other European countries (See: Stephanie Eichholtz: Die US-amerikanische Class Action und ihre deutschen Funktionsquivalente).

national courts reject cases if a foreign court is more suitable to deal with the case. The criteria for that decision are not coherent.
20

Human rights violations of transnational corporations

often affect labor rights. If employer and employee do not explicitly agree to apply German law (which almost never happens in transnational cases), the applicability of German law is precluded according to Art. 30 ff. EGBGB.
21

Art. 4 (1) of the Rome-II-Regulation which applies in

cases of non-contractual obligations (Regula-tion (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/

LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:199:0040:00 49:EN:PDF. The Rome-I-Regulation, dealing with contractual obligations is expected to be completed soon.
22

In 1985, the Compagnie Francaise des Petroles (CFP)

was renamed into Total CFP. In 1991, it was named Total. In 1999 the merger of Total and Petrofina created TotalFina. In 2000, TotalFina merged with Elfaquitaine and became ToltalFinaElf. Since 2003, the corporation is again called Total.
23

The repeated violation of human rights by these cor-

porations raises the question of whether the actions of these transnational corporations involve criminal intention.

Impressum
Publisher: European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights Address: Greifswalder Strae 4 D - 10405 Berlin Tel: +49 (0) 30 40 04 85 90 Fax: +49 (0) 30 40 04 85 92 E-Mail: info@ecchr.eu Web: http://www.ecchr.eu Responsible for content: Wolfgang Kaleck Editor: Denise Bentele, Dr. Miriam Saage-Maa Translation into English: Ruben Reike Revisions by: Dustin Miller, Kenina Lee, Kamil Majchrzak Acknowledgement: We would like to thank Nadja Aschmoneit, Katharina Camerer, Lisa Dahlke, Sarah Ehlers, Elizabeth Grossmann, Nicolai Growe, milie Guilleminault, Pari Hosseinipour, Alexander Kamieth, Carolin Kieling, Melanie Kler, Alena Krtt, Juliana Martnez, Dennis Mitra, Jan-Christian Niebank, Ulrike Mller, Natalya Pak, Anna-Maria Pawliczek, Luisel Jesus Pea, Cydney Peterson, Simon Pletsch, Katja Porzucek, Miriam Saage-Maa, Julia Schlter, Lukas Theune and Anna von Gall for their assistance and cooperation in the completion of the European Cases Database. Their expertise served as crucial elements in leading to our final work. Disclaimer: It is not in the intention of the ECCHR to wrongly discredit corporations or individuals. We apologize for any inaccuracies and appreciate any identification of errors in our work. ECCHR is not liable for any erroneous information presented in this study. (Updated: November 30, 2008) Layout: http://w3BUERO.de The ECCHR Newsletter appears several times a year in German and English. The Newsletter is distributed electronically. The ECCHR is registered as an association under German association law by the Berlin-Charlottenburg Regional Court and has received a tax-privileged purpose of only directly non-profit character.

DONATIONS
The Human Rights work of the ECCHR needs your support. Please help us in the legal fight against grave human rights violations. The ECCHR is a member in the Human Rights Forum [Forum Mensche-nrechte] and the Coalition against Impunity [Koalition gegen Straflosigkeit]. Donations are tax deductible. Donation Account: 74 877 48 000 Berliner Volksbank Bank Code: 100 900 00 IBAN: DE 54 1009 0000 7487 7480 00 BIC: BEVODEBB