SEARCHING FOR ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR FOR TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN BEINGS IN EUROPE Julia Planitzer, Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights International Round Table – Preventing and Combating Child Traffic and Exploitation in Europe, 30 September 2016, Vienna
Stating the issue ‣ Access to remedy for trafficked persons still challenging in Europe ‣ Can corporate liability improve access to remedy? ‣ To which extent is corporate liability regarding trafficking in human beings for labour exploitation used?
How can we establish liability of companies for labour exploitation? COUNTRY ARM BGR GEO MDA MNE NOR ROM SMR SWE MKD GBR ALB AND AUT BEL HRV CYP DNK FRA DEU HUN LVA LUX MLT NLD POL PRT SRB SVK SVN ESP CHE UKR AZE LTU BIH FIN ISL IRL ITA 1 X X X 2 X ‣ Council of Europe’s Monitoring Mechanism GRETA: Country Reports – Overview ‣ In total 49 reports (40 in the 1 st round + 10 in the 2 nd round, as of 26 September 2016) ‣ Indication of cases related to corporate criminal liability concerning THB: four countries
Would exploited persons benefit from it? ‣ Few cases identified in Europe: Belgium, Cyprus, UK, Slovenia, Romania ‣ Cyprus ‣ Application of corporate criminal liability in relation to trafficking in human beings ‣ Poultry farms in Nicosia district ‣ Exploitation of workers from India ‣ Huge sum to be paid upfront, monthly salary of around 500 Euro promised ‣ Salaries for up to ten months withheld, threatened to be deported ‣ Company convicted for THB, fine of €126.000 (No. 36876/12 ‘Chief of Police of Nicosia v. Comet Hatcheries LTD ‘)
Would exploited persons benefit from it? ‣ Belgium ‣ Application of corporate criminal liability in chain ‣ Examples: Carestel -case (First Instance Court of Ghent, 5 November 2012), Quick -case (First Instance Court of Brussels, 25 May 2016)
Corporate criminal liability in chains Company A subcontracts Company B services to exploits workers. company B. Liability of company A (as accomplice)
Can corporate liability improve access to remedy? ‣ Exploited person should (still!) be in the country/trafficked person plays essential role (e.g. Belgium, Austria) ‣ Criminal procedure against company disadvantageous for exploited persons: not heard anymore in court (Cyprus) ‣ Focus on sanctioning the company: link between sanctioning the company/employer and compensating the exploited person not sufficiently established - Assets confiscated (in case of criminal corporate liability) not necessarily used to compensate exploited person (Belgium) ‣ Legal gaps concerning corporate criminal liability in subcontracting/supply chains (Belgium, further clarification necessary)
Thank you! Julia Planitzer Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights (bim.lbg.ac.at) Freyung 6, 1010 Vienna AUSTRIA julia.planitzer@univie.ac.at This presentation shows preliminary findings of a project that is supported by funds of the Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Oesterreichische Nationalbank, Anniversary Fund, project number: 16101).
Recommend
More recommend
