Skip to main content

Achieving Access to Justice in a Business and Human Rights Context: Table of cases

Achieving Access to Justice in a Business and Human Rights Context
Table of cases
    • Notifications
    • Privacy
  • Project HomeAchieving Access to Justice in a Business and Human Rights Context
  • Projects
  • Learn more about Manifold

Notes

Show the following:

  • Annotations
  • Resources
Search within:

Adjust appearance:

  • font
    Font style
  • color scheme
  • Margins
table of contents
  1. Cover
  2. Half Title
  3. Title Page
  4. Copyright Page
  5. Dedication
  6. Contents
  7. Preface and acknowledgements
  8. Table of cases
  9. Table of legislation
  10. List of abbreviations
  11. Part I Setting the scene: access to justice and corporate accountability in Europe
    1. Chapter 1 Introduction
      1. 1 In search of justice and corporate accountability in Europe
      2. 2 Aim of the book
      3. 3 Scope
      4. 4 Key concepts
        1. Multinational enterprises
        2. Corporate accountability
        3. Transnational litigation against MNEs
      5. 5 Background to the book
        1. Globalization
        2. Social movements and cause-lawyering
        3. Access to justice
          1. Procedural versus substantive access to justice
          2. Access to justice or to remedy?
          3. Effective access to justice
          4. Access to justice and corporate accountability
      6. 6 Structure of the book
    2. Chapter 2 Corporate accountability and access to justice in international and European legal frameworks
      1. 1 Introduction
      2. 2 The corporate accountability gap
        1. The international legal personality of non-State actors
        2. Corporate accountability in international and European human rights law
        3. Corporate accountability in international environmental law
      3. 3 Legal frameworks on access to justice
        1. Access to justice in international law
          1. Access to justice in international human rights law
          2. Access to justice in international environmental law
        2. Access to justice in European law
          1. Access to justice under the European Convention on Human Rights
          2. Access to justice in the European Union
      4. 4 The UN Framework and Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
        1. Pillar I: The State duty to protect human rights
        2. Pillar II: The corporate responsibility to respect human rights
        3. Pillar III: Effective access to remedy
          1. Framing effective access to remedy in the BHR context
          2. Added-value of Pillar III
        4. Reception of the UNGPs in Europe
      5. 5 Conclusions
    3. Chapter 3 The rise of transnational litigation against multinational enterprises
      1. 1 Introduction
      2. 2 Origins of transnational litigation against MNEs in common law jurisdictions
        1. The rise and fall of Alien Tort Statute litigation in the United States
        2. Transnational tort claims against MNEs
          1. United States
          2. Canada
          3. Australia
          4. England
            1. Jurisdiction
            2. Corporate group liability
            3. Access to evidence
            4. Litigation costs
      3. 3 Progressive development of transnational litigation against MNEs in European civil law jurisdictions
        1. France
          1. Criminal litigation
          2. Civil litigation
        2. Netherlands
          1. Criminal litigation
          2. Civil litigation
      4. 4 The role of the corporate accountability movement
        1. Understanding the corporate accountability movement
          1. Emergence
          2. Characteristics
          3. The European corporate accountability movement
        2. Legal mobilization for corporate accountability in Europe
          1. Strategic litigation
          2. Measuring the success of transnational litigation against MNEs
            1. Legal and non-legal benefits
            2. Out-of-court settlements
      5. 5 Conclusions
  12. Part II Suing multinational enterprises in Europe: comparing national experiences in civil law jurisdictions
    1. Chapter 4 Civil litigation against multinational enterprises in France and the Netherlands
      1. 1 Introduction
      2. 2 Jurisdiction of home State courts
        1. Corporate defendant domiciled in the EU
        2. Corporate defendant domiciled outside the EU
          1. Joining of co-defendants
          2. Forum necessitatis
        3. Lis pendens
      3. 3 The law applicable to transnational claims against MNEs
        1. Applicable law in transnational claims against MNEs
        2. The Rome II Regulation
          1. General rule: lex loci damni
          2. Residence of the parties
          3. Escape clause
          4. Environmental damage
          5. Freedom of choice
          6. Overriding mandatory provisions
          7. Rules of safety and conduct
          8. Public policy of the forum
        3. Towards a revision of the Rome II Regulation?
      4. 4 The procedural framework for initiating civil proceedings
        1. Right of action
        2. Standing of NGOs
        3. Collective redress
          1. EU efforts on collective redress
          2. Collective redress in France
          3. Collective redress in the Netherlands
      5. 5 Production of evidence
        1. Burden of proof
        2. Admissibility
        3. Disclosure
        4. Discovery
      6. 6 Remedies
        1. Damages
        2. Other remedies
      7. 7 The cost of civil litigation against MNEs
        1. The loser pays principle
        2. Access to legal aid
          1. The EU legal framework on legal aid
          2. National experiences
        3. Market-based funding mechanisms
      8. 8 Conclusions
    2. Chapter 5 Criminal litigation against multinational enterprises in France and the Netherlands
      1. 1 Introduction
      2. 2 Prosecuting MNEs for extraterritorial crimes
        1. The territoriality principle
        2. Alternative principles of jurisdiction
          1. Active personality
          2. Passive personality
          3. Universal jurisdiction
      3. 3 The participation of victims and NGOs in criminal proceedings
        1. Initiating criminal proceedings
        2. The rights of victims of crimes under EU law
          1. Victims’ right to receive information about their case
          2. Victims’ rights in the event of a decision not to prosecute
          3. Victims’ rights to legal aid and reimbursement of expenses
          4. Victims’ right to decision on compensation from the offender in the course of criminal proceedings
      4. 4 Production of evidence
      5. 5 Punishment for corporate crime and remedies for victims
        1. Criminal punishment for companies
        2. Remedies for victims
        3. Alternative mechanisms
          1. Restorative justice
          2. Plea bargaining
          3. Out-of-court settlements
      6. 6 Conclusions
    3. Chapter 6 Holding multinational enterprises liable in France and the Netherlands
      1. 1 Introduction
      2. 2 Challenges to establishing the liability of MNEs
        1. MNEs as corporate groups
        2. Separate legal personality and limited liability within MNEs
        3. Separate legal personality and limited liability in France and the Netherlands
      3. 3 Bases for liability of the parent company
        1. Corporate veil piercing
          1. Company law
            1. France
            2. The Netherlands
          2. The single economic entity in competition law
          3. Voluntary liability
        2. Fault-based liability
          1. Tort law
            1. Direct liability
            2. Exclusion of vicarious liability
            3. The Shell case in the Netherlands
          2. Company law
          3. Environmental law
            1. France
              1. Legal framework
              2. The Erika case
            2. The Netherlands
          4. Labour law
            1. Co-employment
            2. The AREVA case
        3. Criminal liability
          1. Corporate criminal liability
          2. Criminal liability in corporate groups
          3. Elements of corporate criminal liability
            1. Actus reus
            2. Mens rea
      4. 4 Corporate social responsibility: an increasing source of liability?
      5. 5 Conclusions
  13. Part III Future pathways for access to justice in business and human rights
    1. Chapter 7 Achieving access to justice in Europe through mandatory due diligence legislation
      1. 1 Introduction
      2. 2 Unpacking human rights due diligence
        1. The concept of due diligence
        2. Human rights due diligence in the UNGPs
        3. Human rights due diligence and access to justice
      3. 3 Mandatory human rights due diligence in national legislation
        1. Mandatory human rights due diligence standards
        2. The French Act on the Duty of Vigilance
          1. The HRDD obligations of companies
          2. Liability regime
        3. The Dutch Child Labour Due Diligence Act
      4. 4 Towards mandatory human rights due diligence in the EU
        1. Existing EU due diligence standards
        2. Options for an EU instrument on mandatory human rights due diligence
          1. Scope
          2. HRDD obligations
          3. Enforcement
          4. Access to justice
      5. 5 Conclusions
    2. Chapter 8 Achieving access to justice through an international treaty on business and human rights
      1. 1 Introduction
      2. 2 The contentious road to an international treaty on BHR
        1. The UNGPs’ failure to achieve access to justice
        2. The positions of the main stakeholders on a BHR Treaty
        3. Pros and cons of a BHR Treaty
          1. Arguments in support of a BHR Treaty
          2. Arguments against a BHR Treaty
      3. 3 The added-value of an international treaty on BHR for access to justice
        1. The type of international instrument
        2. Scope
        3. Content
          1. Business liability for human rights abuse
          2. Jurisdiction
            1. Jurisdiction in civil cases
            2. Jurisdiction in criminal cases
          3. Applicable law
          4. Participation of victims in proceedings
          5. Procedural and practical barriers
          6. Remedies
      4. 4 Conclusions
    3. Chapter 9 Conclusions
      1. 1 Main findings
      2. 2 Looking forward
  14. Index

Table of cases

Decisions of national courts and tribunals

Australia

- Dagi v Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd (No 2) [1997] 1 VR 42890
- Kamasaee v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors S CI 2014 6770, [2017] VSC 53790, 91
- Sanda v PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 1272; (No 5) [2019] FCA 932 (17 June 2019)91

Canada

- Anvil Mining Ltd v Association Canadienne Contre L’Impunité, 2012 QCCA 11788
- Araya v Nevsun Resources Ltd, 2016 BCSC 1856; 2017 BCCA 401; 2020 SCC 588, 89, 90
- Choc v Hudbay Minerals Inc, 2013 ONSC 141488
- Das v George Weston Limited, 2017 ONSC 4129; 2018 ONCA 105388
- Garcia v Tahoe Resources Inc, 2015 BCSC 2045; 2017 BCCA 3942
- Piedra v Copper Mesa Mining Corporation, 2011 ONCA 19188
- Recherches Internationales Quebec v Cambior Inc, 1998 QJ 2554 (SCJ)88

England

- AAA v Unilever Plc [2018] EWCA Civ 1532 [36]97
- Arroyo v BP Exploration Company (Colombia) Ltd [2010] EWHC 1643 (QB)92
- Arroyo v Equion Energia Ltd [2013] EWHC 3150 (TCC)92
- Bodo Community v Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd [2014] EWHC 1973 (TCC)102
- Chandler v Cape Plc [2011] EWHC 951 (QB), [2012] EWCA Civ 52595–97, 259–260
- Connelly v RTZ Corporation Plc [1996] QB 361 (CA), [1997] UKHL 30, [1998] AC 854, [1999] CLC 53393
- Guerrero v Monterrico Metals Plc [2009] EWHC 2475 (QB), [2010] EWHC 160 (QB), [2010] EWHC 3228 (QB)92
- Kalma v African Minerals Ltd [2018] EWHC 3506 (QB), [2020] EWCA Civ 144100
- Lubbe v Cape Plc [1998] EWCA Civ 1351, [2000] UKHL 4193
- McDonald’s Corporation v Steel and Morris [1997] EWHC QB 36693
- Motto v Trafigura Ltd [2006] Claim BV HQ06X03370, [2009] EWHC 1246 (QB), [2011] EWCA Civ 115092, 103, 104, 131, 133
- Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell Plc [2017] EWHC 89 (TCC), [2018] EWCA Civ 191, [2021] UKSC 394, 95, 99, 101–103, 136, 335
- Vava v Anglo American South Africa Ltd [2011] Claim No HQ11X03245, [2012] EWHC 1969 (QB)102
- Vedanta Resources Plc v Lungowe [2019] UKSC 2097, 99, 101, 131, 136, 261, 335

France

- Chambre de l’Instruction, CA Paris 13 February 2004202
- Cons Conc, Décision n°05-D-49 du 28 juillet 2005 relative à des pratiques mises en œuvre dans le secteur de la location entretien des machines d’affranchissement ostal252
- Cons Conc, Décision n° 07-D-12 du 28 mars 2007 relative à des pratiques mises en œuvre dans le secteur du chèque-cinéma252
- Cons const 23 March 2017, Décision n° 2017-750307
- Conseil des Prud’Hommes Paris 26 January 2011, nº F 08/06791114, 149
- CA Nîmes 8 July 2002 (Ould Dah)213
- CA Paris, 31 May 1989 D 1989 IR 227247
- CA Paris 15 January 1999, n° 1998/04408264
- CA Paris 30 March 2010, n° 08/02278267
- CA Paris 20 June 2013, nº 08/07365114, 150, 272
- CA Paris 24 October 2013, n° 12/05650, 12/05777, 12/05651115, 155, 156
- CA Paris, 28 March 2019, n°17/21751114, 149, 150
- CA Paris 17 September 2020, n° 19/20669187
- CA Versailles 17 December 2009, n° 09/04772, 09/04795338
- CA Versailles 22 March 2013, n° 11/05331113, 165
- CA Versailles 10 December 2020, n° 20/ 01692 & 20/ 01693305
- Cour d’assises Nîmes 1 July 2005 (Ould Dah)213
- Cass ass plén 29 March 1991, n° 89-15.231 (Blieck)257
- Cass ch réunies 15 June 1923, DP 1924 1 153, S 1924 1 49, note Chavegrin (Cardinal Luçon)164
- Cass civ 23 July 1918, DP 1918, 1, 52164
- Cass civ 27 February 1951 (Branly)255
- Cass civ 26 November 1974, n° 73-13.820153
- Cass civ (1) 27 May 1975, D 1976, 318, obs Viney164
- Cass civ (2) 20 March 1989, n° 88-11585164
- Cass civ (2) 22 May 1995, n° 92-21871257
- Cass civ (3) 17 July 1997, n° 95-18100164
- Cass civ (2) 15 November 2001, n°99-21.636255
- Cass civ (1) 6 November 2002, n° 00-15.220178
- Cass civ (2) 20 November 2003, n° 02-13.653164
- Cass civ (3) 25 February 2004, n° 01-11764164
- Cass civ (2) 13 January 2005, n° 03-13.531163
- Cass civ (2) 22 September 2005, n° 04-14.092257
- Cass civ (2) 8 February 2006, n° 05-14.198183
- Cass civ (2) 28 June 2006, n° 05-19.283183
- Cass civ (3) 26 September 2007, n° 04-20636164
- Cass civ (2) 29 September 2011, n° 10-24.684183
- Cass civ (1) 5 April 2012, n°11-14.177177
- Cass civ (2) 16 May 2012, n° 11-17.229183
- Cass civ (2) 12 July 2012, n° 11-18.399183
- Cass civ 22 January 2015, n° 13-28.414115, 272
- Cass com 5 February 1985, n° 82-15.119240
- Cass com 5 April 1994, n° 93-15.956249
- Cass com 18 October 1994, n° 92-21.199247
- Cass com 2 April 1996, n° 94-1680243
- Cass com 4 March 1997, n° 95-10756250
- Cass com 2 December 1997, n° 95-17.624249
- Cass com 13 February 2001, n° 98-15190249
- Cass com 19 April 2005, n° 05-10.094 (Theetten v SA Metaleurop)249
- Cass com 26 February 2008, n° 06-20.310250
- Cass com 26 March 2008, n° 07-11619253, 265
- Cass com 6 September 2011, n° 10-30679302
- Cass com 15 November 2011, n° 10-21701 (Sté JCB Service (FD))243
- Cass com 12 June 2012, n° 11-16109251
- Cass com 19 February 2013, n° 11-28.846153
- Cass com 2 July 2014, n° 13-15.208 (Molex)271
- Cass crim 9 December 1933, Bull crim n° 237201
- Cass crim 4 February 1985, n° 84-91581 (Rozenblum)240
- Cass crim 6 February 1996, Bull crim n° 60200
- Cass crim 20 June 2000, n° 99-86-742275
- Cass crim 26 June 2001, Bull Crim (2001) 161 (Sté Carrefour)280
- Cass crim 23 October 2002 (Ould Dah)213
- Cass crim 12 April 2005, n° 04-82318107
- Cass crim 31 January 2007, Bull crim n° 28200
- Cass crim 20 June 2006, n° 05-85255278
- Cass crim 1 April 2008, n° 07-84839277
- Cass crim 25 June 2008, n° 07-80261278
- Cass crim 27 October 2009, n° 09-80490278
- Cass crim 13 April 2010, n° 09-86429278
- Cass crim 25 September 2012, n° 10-82938267
- Cass crim 22 January 2013, n° 12-80022277
- Cass crim 7 September 2021, n° 19-87.031, 19-87.036, 19-87.040, 19-87.367, 19-87.376 and 19-87.662112, 225, 275, 276
- Cass soc 19 June 2007, n° 05-42.570270
- Cass soc 18 January 2011, n° 09-69.199270, 271
- Cass soc 28 September 2011, n° 10-12.278270
- Cass soc 30 November 2011, n°10-22.964 to 10-22.985 and 10-22.994270
- Cass soc 25 September 2013, n° 11-25.733270, 271
- Cass soc 28 January 2015, nº 13-22.994 to 13-23.006114, 150, 178
- Cass soc 14 September 2017, n°15-26.737, 16-26.738114, 150
- Cass soc 24 May 2018, n°17-15.630, n°16-18.621271
- TASS Melun 11 May 2012, n°10-00924/MN115, 155, 271
- T com Orléans 1 June 2012, n° 2010-11170255
- TGI Nanterre 15 April 2009, n° 07/2902143, 148
- TGI Nanterre 30 May 2011, n° 10/02629113, 156
- TGI Nanterre 10 February 2017, n° 15/10981115, 178
- TGI Paris (11) 16 January 2008, n° 9934895010267
- TJ Nanterre (ord réf) 30 January 2020, n° 19/02833305
- TJ Nanterre (ord réf) 11 February 2021, n° 20/00915306

Netherlands

- CA Amsterdam 21 June 1979, NJ 1980, 217 (BATCO)282
- CA Arnhem 10 May 1994, TMA 94-6, 155 et seq (Roco BV v De Staat der Nederlanden)268
- CA The Hague 9 May 2007, Case No 2200050906 – 2 (Public Prosecutor v Van Anraat)209
- CA The Hague 12 April 2011, NJFS 2011, 137116, 208
- CA The Hague 18 December 2015, C/09/337058/HAZA09-1581 + C/09/365482/HAZA10-1665117, 144, 260
- CA The Hague 29 January 2021, C/09/365498/HAZA10-1677 (case a) + C/09/330891/HAZA09-0579 (case b) (Oguru); C/09/337058/HAZA09-1581 (case c) + C/09/365482/HAZA10-1665 (case d) (Dooh); C/09/337050/HAZA09-1580 (cases e + f) (Akpan)117, 190, 261
- DC The Hague 23 December 2005, Case No 09/751003-04 (Public Prosecutor v Van Anraat)209
- DC The Hague 30 December 2009, Judgement in Motion Contesting Jurisdiction, 330891/HAZA09-579117, 144
- DC The Hague 14 September 2011, Judgment in the Ancillary Actions Concerning the Production of Exhibits and in the Main Actions, 337050/HAZA09-1580 (Akpan v Royal Dutch Shell Plc); 330891/HAZA09-0579 (Oguru v Royal Dutch Shell Plc); 337058/HAZA09-1581 (Dooh v Royal Dutch Shell Plc)117, 172
- DC The Hague 30 January 2013, C/09/337050/HAZA09-1580 (Akpan v Royal Dutch Shell Plc); C/09/330891/HAZA09-0579 (Oguru v Royal Dutch Shell Plc); C/09/337058/HAZA09-1581 (Dooh v Royal Dutch Shell Plc)117, 155, 259
- DC The Hague 1 May 2019, C/09/540872/HAZA17-1048 (Kiobel v Royal Dutch Shell Plc)118, 145
- DC The Hague 26 May 2021, C/09/571932/HAZA19-379256, 376
- DC Zutphen 1 August 1991, Vermande D-8-85 (Roco BV v De Staat der Nederlanden)268
- HR 6 April 1915, NJ 1915, 475202
- HR 14 March 1950, NJ 1952, 656280
- HR 30 June 1950, NJ 1950, 646204
- HR 6 April 1954, NJ 1954, 368202
- HR 25 September 1981, NJ 1982, 443 (Osby-Pannan A/B v Las Verkoopmaatschappij BV)263
- HR 17 June 1986, NJ 1987, 743166
- HR 19 February 1988, NJ 1988, 487263
- HR 18 October 1988, NJ 1989, 496207
- HR 11 December 1990, NJ 1991, 466207
- HR 12 February 1991, NJ 1991, 528207
- HR 24 January 1995, NJ 1995, 352203
- HR 16 June 1995, NJ 1996, 214269
- HR 3 November 1995, NJ 1996, 215268
- HR 15 October 1996, NJ 1997, 109280
- HR 18 February 1997, NJ 1997, 628202
- HR 23 October 2001, NJ 2002, 77 (Bouterse)214
- HR 21 December 2001, NJ 2005, 96263
- HR 21 May 2002, NJ 2003, 316 (Asean Explorer)206
- HR 21 October 2003, NJ 2006, 328278
- HR 30 June 2009, Case No 07/10742 (Public Prosecutor v Van Anraat)209
- HR 18 March 2011, RvdW 2011, 392264

United States

- Daimler Ag v Bauman 134 S Ct 746 (2014)87
- Doe v Unocal Corp 963 F Supp 880 (CD Cal 1997); 395 F 3d 932 (9th Cir 2002); 395 F 3d 978 (9th Cir 2003)83
- Filártiga v Peña-Irala 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir 1980)82
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations SA v Brown 131 S Ct 2846 (2011)87
- Hilao v Estate of Marcos 103 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 1996)83
- Jesner v Arab Bank 138 S Ct 1386 (2018)84
- Kadić v Karadžić 70 F 3d 232 (2d Cir 1995)83
- Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co 621 F.3d 111 (2nd Circ 2010); 133 S Ct 1659 (2013)84
- Nestle USA Inc. v Doe 141 S Ct 1931 (2021)85
- Wiwa v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co 226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir 2000); 2002 WL 319887 (SDNY 2002)83

Decisions of international and regional courts

Court of Justice of the European Union

- Akzo Nobel NV v Commission (C-97/08) [2009] ECR I-8237252
- ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA v Commission (C-201/09 P and C-216/09 P) [2011] ECR I-2239252
- DEB Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-279/09) [2010] ECR I-1384962, 191
- Deo Antoine Homawoo v GMF Assurances SA (C-412/10) [2011] ECR I-11603154
- ENI SpA v Commission (C-508/11) [2013] OJ 225/11252
- General Química e.a. v Commission (C-90/09 P) [2011] ECR I-0000252
- Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Commission (C-48/69) [1972] ECR 619272
- Owusu v Jackson (C-281/02) [2005] ECR I-138393
- Régie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Maxicar SpA and Orazio Formento (C-38/ 98) [2000] ECR I-02973161
- Viho European BV v Commission (C-73/95 P) [1996] ECR I-5457252

European Court and Commission of Human Rights

- Airey v Ireland (1980) 2 EHRR 30558
- Aksoy v Turkey (1996) 23 EHRR 55359
- Al- Skeini v UK (2011) 53 EHRR 1841
- Arnoldi v Italy App no 35637/ 04 (ECtHR, 7 December 2017)59
- Běleš v Czech Republic App no 47273/ 99 (ECtHR, 12 November 2002)58
- Bellet v France (1995) Series A no 333-B166
- Bock v Germany (1989) 12 EHRR 247151
- Çakıcı v Turkey (2001) 31 EHRR 559
- Dombo Beheer BV v Netherlands (1994) 18 EHRR 21358
- Fadeyeva v Russia (2007) 45 EHRR 1041
- Feldbrugge v Netherlands (1986) 8 EHRR 425258
- Golder v the UK (1975) Series A no 1858, 165
- Ilaşcu and v Moldova and Russia (2005) 40 EHRR 103041
- İlhan v Turkey (2002) 34 EHRR 3659
- Issa v Turkey (2004) 41 EHRR 56741
- Kudla v Poland (2002) 35 EHRR 19859
- Lupsa and v Romania ECHR 2006-VII166
- Lόpez Ostra v Spain (1995) 20 EHRR 27741
- McFarlane v Ireland App no 31333/ 06 (ECtHR, 10 September 2010)188
- Moulin v France App no 37104/06 (ECtHR, 23 November 2010)206
- Naït- Liman v Switzerland App no 51357/ 07 (ECtHR, 15 March 2018)58
- Ould Dah v France App no 13113/03 (ECtHR, 17 March 2009)213
- Paulino Tomás v Portugal App no 58698/ 00 (ECtHR, 27 March 2003)60
- Pérez de Rada Cavanilles v Spain (1998) 29 EHRR 109166
- Perez v France (2005) 40 EHRR 3959
- Philis v Greece (1991) Series A no 209166
- Poiss v Austria (1987) 10 EHRR 231151
- Regner v Czech Republic App no 35289/ 11 (ECtHR, 19 September 2017)58
- Sibson v UK (1993) 17 EHRR 19341
- Steel and Morris v UK (2005) 41 EHRR 2259
- Tănase v Romania App no 41720/ 13 (ECtHR, 25 June 2019)59
- The Holy Monasteries v Greece (1995) Series A no 301-A166
- Tomasi v France (1992) Series A no 24-1A59
- Tunç v Turkey App no 24014/ 05 (ECtHR, 25 June 2019)59
- Young, James and Webster v UK (1981) 4 EHRR 3841
- Yvon v France (2005) 40 EHRR 4159
- Zubac v Croatia App no 40160/ 12 (ECtHR, 5 April 2018)58

International Court of Justice

- Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) [1949] ICJ Rep 17436

Others

- Judgement of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal 1946 (1947) 41 AJIL 17236

Annotate

Next Chapter
Table of legislation
PreviousNext
All rights reserved
Powered by Manifold Scholarship. Learn more at
Opens in new tab or windowmanifoldapp.org