The Human Rights Due Diligence Standard-Setting in the European Union: Bridging the Gap Between Ambition and Reality

Globalization has, over the past decades, erased borders between continents and countries. It has propelled international trade to previously unforeseen heights. Nonetheless, it has brought about not only positive impact, but also negative consequences for individuals and communities worldwide. Businesses have often been alleged to have been directly or indirectly involved in human rights violations. On the other hand, rights-holders have often found it difficult to enforce corporate human rights obligations and accountability either at home or abroad. Nonetheless, the field of business and human rights has in recent years witnessed seminal developments from the adoption of binding laws in the domestic system to the advancement of negotiations on the potential UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights. This article portrays and examines the Business and Human Rights Due Diligence Standard-Setting in the European Union. First, it describes and analyses the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive, which obliges larger corporations to annually submit reports on compliance with the non-financial indicators. Secondly, it describes and comments on the supply chain due diligence obligations under the EU Conflict Mineral Regulation. Thirdly, it discusses recent developments within the European Union to develop and adopt the potential general Directive on Corporate Accountability and Due Diligence, which promises to impose due diligence human rights obligations on all businesses. All in all, the EU’s objectives for socio-economic development rest on sustainability, green economy, and digitalization. For the EU and its Member States to achieve those goals, the private sector and businesses need to subscribe to those non-financial indicators. Finally, this article argues that the binding legislation within the EU and its Member States on human rights due diligence in the global business supply chain will provide impetus for regulation in other regions and domestic legal systems

Authoritarian Dimension of Judicial Ideology of the Slovenian Constitutional Court

After the democratization and independence of Slovenia, the Constitutional Court has generated the paradigm reform in the Slovenian constitutional system by protecting individual rights against the heritage of the former system. The constitutional judges are not blank slates, but individuals embedded in their private and professional environments. In the past three decades, the Court has delivered several seminal decisions concerning the protection of the rule of law, human rights, and constitutional democracy. What motivates constitutional judges to protect individual rights in some cases and show preference for the preservation of authority and stability of the existing legal system in others? The article is based on the empirical research measuring the presence of judicial ideology at the Constitutional Court of Slovenia in three mandates (1993–1997, 2002–2006, 2011–2016). The methodological and theoretical model aims to measure economic, social, and authoritarian dimensions of judicial ideology (three-fold judicial ideology model). The research group has analysed the decisions and separate opinions of the Constitutional Court from selected periods based on hypotheses provided by the model. This article intends to present and analyse the research results concerning the authoritarian dimension of judicial ideology. More specifically, it examines the level of authoritarianism of the Slovenian Constitutional Court in its judicial decision-making during the three mentioned mandates. Through the obtained empirical results, the paper seeks to strengthen fair, impartial, and independent functioning of the Slovenian Constitutional Court and its respective judges

Responding to the Conflict of Interest Risks in Central and Eastern Europe: Case of Slovenia

Prohibition of conflict of interest prevents abuses of the rule of law in modern constitutional democracies. As a result, is ensures that persons working in state institutions do not use their posts and functions for private gain. The experience from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) illustrates that state authorities have in the past faced challenges in how to internalise the prohibition of conflict of interest. Literature from CEE on the prohibition of conflict of interest has been scarse. Consequently, this paper aims to address this gap by examining the experience of the Slovenian state in coping with the risks arising from conflict of interest. It discusses and analyses on one hand theoretical and normative underpinnings of the prohibition of conflict of interest in the Slovenian, European and international frameworks. On the other hand, it examines the recent practice of administrative and judicial bodies concerning the prohibition of conflict of interest. It finds that normative frameworks in the Slovenian constitutional framework have been reformed in recent years. Nonetheless, there is still a risk of potential and actual conflict of interest for the implementation of the rule of law in state institutions. The normative prohibition appears not to have been fully internalised in the practice of state institutions. As a result, the authors submit that state institutions should not turn a blind eye to the risk of conflict of interest in order to show willingness to strengthen the rule of law in the Slovenian constitutional democracy. The Slovenian normative and empirical experience shows lessons that can be taken up in the constitutional democracies of Central and Eastern Europe experiencing similar challenges

Amicus Brief by Amnesty International and Others

On September 2, 2020, six Portuguese youth filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights against 33 countries. The complaint alleges that the respondents have violated human rights by failing to take sufficient action on climate change, and seeks an order requiring them to take more ambitious action. The complaint relies on Articles 2, 8, and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect the right to life, right to privacy, and right to not experience discrimination. The complainants claim that their right to life is threatened by the effects of climate change in Portugal such as forest fires; that their right to privacy includes their physical and mental wellbeing, which is threatened by heatwaves that force them to spend more time indoors; and that as young people, they stand to experience the worst effects of climate change. The case is brought against the Member States of the Council of Europe (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden) as well as Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. The complainants allege that the respondents have fallen short of their human rights obligations by failing to agree to emissions reductions that will keep temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as envisioned by the Paris Agreement. On November 30, 2020, The European Court of Human Rights fast-tracked and communicated the case to 33 defendant countries, requiring them to respond by the end of February 2021. According to the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), who are supporting the case, only a tiny minority of cases before the Court are fast-tracked and communicated. On February 4, 2021, the Court rejected a motion by the defendant governments asking the Court to overturn its fast-tracking decision. The governments had asked the court to overturn priority treatment of the case and to hear arguments only on the admissibility of the case. The Court sent a letter to the parties rejecting these motions and gave the defendants until May 27, 2021 to submit a defense on both admissibility and the merits of the case. The Court also granted until May 6, 2021 third party interventions. Among other seven third-party intervention, on May 5, 2021, Amnesty International intervened in the case and submitted her written observations to the European Court of Human Rights. The submission supports the claimants\u27 position, providing legal arguments to the Court to show that international law requires states to not harm, and to not allow companies within their jurisdiction to harm, the human rights of people outside their borders. On May 19, 2021 a new intervention was made by the European Commission submitted her written observations to the European Court of Human Rights. Noting the pronounced impact of environmental degradation and climate change on human rights, the Commissioner argues that international environmental and children’s rights law instruments should play a significant role in defining the scope of states’ obligation to prevent human rights violations caused by environmental harm. The Commission bases its defense of EU policy in the field of environmental protection on sound legal reasoning and science-based evidence. The term ‘climate emergency’ expresses the political will to fulfill the obligations under the Paris Agreement. The Commissioner concludes that “the increasing number of climate change-related applications provide the Court with a unique opportunity to continue to forge the legal path towards a more complete implementation of the Convention and to offer real-life protection to individuals affected by environmental degradation and climate change.” On August 14, 2021, the claimants received the respondent governments’ respective defenses. However, on legal advice, the claimants have decided not to make them public. The claimants have until January 12, 2022 to respond to the governments’ defenses. On June 30, 2022, the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights relinquished jurisdiction in favor of the Grand Chamber. The case is now going to be examined by the ECtHR\u27s Grand Chamber of 17 judges on account of the fact that the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention (Art 30 ECHR). At Issue: Youth filed human rights complaint against 33 governments

Critical Assessment of the Functioning of the Slovenian Ombudsman

Pričujoči prispevek podaja kritično oceno pristojnosti in dosedanjega dela varuha človekovih pravic v slovenskem pravnem redu. Učinkovito varovanje človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin sodi med ključne vrednote zrele demokratične družbe. Kako lahko vsakokratna družba učinkovito deluje, če ne želi oziroma ne zna dostojno zavarovati temeljnih vrednot? Taka družba ostaja azčlovečena tako na zavestni kot podzavestni ravni. Inštitucija varuh človekovih pravic je v slovenskem pravnem redu sicer dobro normativno urejena, saj nosilcu funkcije varuha daje primerjalno pravno zelo široke pristojnosti pri njegovem delovanju. Vprašanje pa je ali lahko slovenski ustavni red in varuh človekovih pravic zagotovita učinkovito vsebinsko in postopkovno varstvo človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin. Slovenska država je dolžna čim prej zagotoviti učinkovito, neselektivno, neodvisno in nepristransko delovanje varuha človekovih pravic. Slednje obveznosti izhajajo tako iz ustavnopravnih kot mednarodnopravnih virov in take so navsezadnje tudi zahteve človekovega dostojanstva. Varuh človekovih pravic pri tem izvaja pomembno vlogo, vendar je lahko njegov prispevek oprijemljiv le, če deluje neodvisno in nepristransko. Po kratkem uvodu v drugem delu analiziramo ustavni položaj varuha in njegove zakonske pristojnosti. V tretjem delu izpostavljamo in analiziramo nekatere primere varuhovega napačnega razumevanja varstva človekovih pravic. V četrtem delu predstavljamo vizijo udealnega delovanja varuha človekovih pravic, pri čemer v petem delu opozarjamo na potrebnost ustanovitve nepristranske in neodvisne nacionalne inštitucije za varstvo človekovih pravic. V zaključku ugotavljamo, da so človekove pravice in temeljne svoboščine v slovenskem ustavnem redu sicer dobro varovane, da pa je potrebno izboljšati delovanje varuha človekovih pravic v praksi.The article evaluates the competences and previous work of the ombudsman in the Slovenian legal system. Effective protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms is one of the key values of a mature democratic society. How can a society function effectively if it is not able to protect such fundamental values? The institution of the Ombudsman is satisfactorily regulated in the Slovenian legal system as it has relatively broad competences. The question remains whether the Slovenian constitutional order and the Ombudsman are able to ensure effective substantive and procedural protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Slovenian authorities are obliged to ensure effective, non-selective, independent, and impartial functioning of the Ombudsman. This obligation arises from both constitutional and international sources and such are ultimately the requirements of human dignity. The Ombudsman thus performs an important role, but only if he/she operates independently and is not biased. Firstly, the article examines the constitutional position of the Ombudsman and his/her legal powers. Secondly, it highlights and analyses some examples of misunderstanding of the protection of human rights in his previous work. Thirdly, it offers a vision and model of the ideal functioning of the Ombudsman and argues for the establishment of an impartial and independent national institution for the protection of human rights. In conclusion, the article argues that human rights and fundamental freedoms are generally well protected in the Slovenian constitutional order, but they should be better implemented in practice

Pitfalls of the National Selection Processes of Judges to the ECtHR

Even though the selection process in the Council of Europe is quite rigorous and strict, it does not fully exclude the possibility of day-to-day politics interfering with the national selection process. The Council of Europe does not have much influence on the national selection procedures. Consider, for instance, the ongoing difficulties to select a judge on behalf of Slovenia. </p