In January 2017 I reported that Ms Kiobel, following failure to convince the USSC of jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute, subsequently initiated proceedings in the Dutch courts to try and sue Shell over the case. (Evidently unrelated to the pursuit of Shell in The Netherlands on environmental grounds – a case which is still pending upon appeal).
The court in first instance at the Hague on 1 May accepted jurisdiction against
Coming so soon after the UKSC in Vedanta the Dutch case has received quite a bit of attention. After first not considering an English translation (not surprisingly; these are the Dutch courts, not a World Service), the clerks have now announced that there will be one, coming up some time soon.
Readers of the blog will expect me to hold the judgment against a clear jurisdictional and conflict of laws lens – in doing so, I fear I have to be a little bit less optimistic than media soundbites following the case.
Jurisdictional issues were in the end dealt with fairly summarily. Most attention went to issues of evidence and discovery, as well as a first review of the substance of the case.
Of note is:
Importantly, a great deal of attention at 4.30 ff goes to the debate on the use of documents obtained in US discovery, in the Dutch proceedings. A fair amount of these had to be returned following a confidentiality agreement in the US proceedings. Claimants make recourse to Article 6 ECHR to regain access for use in the Dutch proceedings however the Dutch court curtails much of that. Civil law discovery rules are notoriously more claimant friendly than those of the common law (a comment also made by Marsh CM in Glaxo v Sandoz. It leads to Shell not having to turn over quite a large part of the documents claimants had hoped to use.
At 4.58 ff the Court then turns to the substance of the case for case management reasons, with a view to determining which parts of the claim may be made subject to further proof. It holds in a way which I imagine must have been very disappointing for claimants. Only limited claims (of the Nigerian daughter’s involvement in the bribing of witnesses) will be allowed to continue.
The court held that claims of controlling meddling in the Nigerian court proceedings were not proven with sufficient force for these claims to continue – instead it held that Shell’s policy of silent diplomacy, in line with its business policies, had been consistently carried out.
All in all I would suggest claimants have scored clear points on jurisdiction, minor points on discovery and a disappointing outcome for them on substance. Albeit that the witness bribe leg may still lead to a finding of human rights infringement.
Geert.
(Handbook of) European private international law, second ed. 2016, Chapter 8, Headings 8.3.1.1., 8.3.2.
Par un arrêt du 17 avril 2019, la Cour de cassation se prononce dans l’affaire médiatique du navire « Le prestige », à propos de la responsabilité des sociétés de certification, et ce sous l’angle du droit international privé.
Procédures civiles d'exécution
Urbanisme
Séparation des pouvoirs
Urbanisme
Appel civil
Saisie immobilère
Procédure civile
La direction des affaires civiles et du Sceau a publié une circulaire du 24 avril 2019 de présentation des dispositions des deux règlements européens du 24 juin 2016 n° 2016/1103 et n° 2016/1104 sur les régimes matrimoniaux et les partenariats enregistrés.
La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne juge que les dispositions de la directive sur les réfugiés permettant la révocation ou le refus de l’octroi du statut de réfugié à l’encontre de personnes représentant une menace pour la sécurité de l’État membre d’accueil sont conformes à la Convention de Genève.
Confiscation - Peines
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer