El derecho de acceso a la justicia través de un recurso judicial efectivo: Estableciendo la comparación entre los Tribunales de Luxemburgo y Estrasburgo

In the realm of human rights and justice, the fundamental principle of the right to access the court through an effective legal remedy holds utmost significance. This article engages in a comparative analysis between the Court of Justice of the EU in Luxembourg, and the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, in terms of their role in safeguarding this crucial right. By examining their jurisdictional differences, enforcement mechanisms, and approaches to ensuring access to justice, the analysis aims to shed light on the unique dynamics of these two influential Courts. The article not only explores the legal pathways available to individuals seeking remedies for rights’ violations, but also examines the broader implications for the protection of human rights across the European continent. Through an examination of the relevant case law, procedural intricacies, and overarching principles, this article offers a comprehensive insight into the methods employed by the two Courts to uphold the right to an effective legal remedy, thus ultimately contributing to an understanding of the complex landscape of European legal protection, particularly in light of the upcoming EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.En el ámbito de los derechos humanos y la justicia, el principio fundamental del derecho de acceso a los tribunales mediante un recurso judicial efectivo reviste la máxima importancia. Este artículo presenta un análisis comparativo entre el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, con sede en Luxemburgo, y el Tribunal de Derechos Humanos, con sede en Estrasburgo, en cuanto a su papel en la salvaguarda de este derecho crucial. Mediante el examen de sus diferencias jurisdiccionales, mecanismos de ejecución y enfoques para garantizar el acceso a la justicia, el análisis pretende arrojar luz sobre la dinámica única de estos dos influyentes tribunales. El artículo explora las vías legales disponibles para las personas que buscan reparación por violaciones de sus derechos y examina las implicaciones más amplias para la protección de los derechos humanos en el continente europeo. A través de un examen de la jurisprudencia pertinente, las complejidades procesales y los principios generales, este artículo ofrece una visión global de los métodos empleados por los dos tribunales para defender el derecho a un recurso judicial efectivo, contribuyendo así en última instancia a la comprensión del complejo panorama de la protección jurídica europea, en especial con vistas a la próxima adhesión de la Unión Europea al Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos.

Internal Whistleblowing in the US after Digital Realty Trust v Somers: Any Lessons to be Learnt from Europe?

The US Supreme Court, in Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v Somers, held that employees, who only report securities law violations internally, are not whistleblowers and therefore do not qualify for whistleblower anti-retaliation protection under the Dodd-Frank Act. This decision is based on an accurate statutory interpretation and reflects a clear policy preference towards external whistleblowing in aid of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) enforcement efforts. Despite the strong incentive to have fraudulent practices and violations reported to the SEC, employees that only make internal reports should not be left without protection. On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, a different approach is observed with more emphasis on internal reporting as the first course of action for potential whistleblowers. European countries tend to prioritise resolving potential issues through internal reporting channels before involving external regulatory authorities. This emphasis on internal reporting is rooted in the belief that it promotes a culture of trust and accountability within companies. Digital Realty Trust v Somers clarified the scope of whistleblower protection under the Dodd-Frank Act, but also initiated a much-needed discussion about the different paths available to whistleblowers and the factors that should be taken into consideration before a decision is made to report externally or internally. Although in principle there is no right or wrong decision, there are some lessons to be learnt in the US and the examples of the UK, France and the EU should not be overlooked considering how interconnected and interdependent our society is

A New Perspective on the Protection of Whistleblowers Under Echr:Halet V Luxembourg

The Luxleaks scandal, which had garnered widespread attention in 2014 and implicated A. Deltour and R. Halet, has taken a significant turn with the recent publication of the Grand Chamber’s decision in favour of Mr Halet. Initially, Deltour was officially recognised as a whistleblower by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in defence of the actions he took, while Halet faced condemnation for lacking whistleblower status. Halet had previously brought his case before the ECtHR, alleging a violation of his right to freedom of expression. However, the ECtHR’s judgment in February 2023 ultimately upheld the right to freedom of expression, marking a pivotal moment in this legal saga. The judgment itself focused on two critical criteria for safeguarding whistle-blowers within the framework of freedom of expression: assessing the damage caused to the employer and determining whether such damage could be outweighed by the public interest, as well as evaluating the severity of the imposed sanctions. This contribution aims to provide a critical assessment of the Luxleaks case up until the the ECtHR’s Grand Chamber decision. As this analysis will argue, the judgment holds immense significance as it introduces a fresh perspective on the notions of damage and public interest in the context of the Court’s established jurisprudence concerning whistleblower protection

Accountability and multinational corporations: Minding the gap and mechanisms for responsible business

In today\u27s global economy, multinational corporations (MNCs) wield substantial influence across industries, economies, and societies worldwide. This article addresses the vital issue of holding MNCs accountable for their actions. As MNCs navigate complex supply chains, diverse stakeholders, and intricate operational structures, the imperative for ethical, environmental, and social compliance becomes pronounced. The challenge lies in establishing accountability for these transnational entities, given the limitations of traditional regulatory frameworks. Various mechanisms have emerged to bridge this accountability gap, encompassing domestic and international regulations, industry-led initiatives, and civil society interventions. This article offers an inclusive overview of these mechanisms, analysing their strengths and limitations, and assessing their real-world efficacy. By examining the diverse approaches, the article contributes to discussions on fostering responsibility in an interconnected business landscape.En la economía global actual, las corporaciones multinacionales (CMN) ejercen una influencia sustancial en industrias, economías y sociedades de todo el mundo. Este artículo aborda la cuestión vital de responsabilizar a las empresas multinacionales por sus acciones. Lo anterior, debido a que, a medida que las multinacionales navegan por complejas cadenas de suministro y por diversas partes interesadas y estructuras operativas intrincadas; el imperativo de cumplimiento ético, ambiental y social se vuelve inminente. El desafío radica en establecer la rendición de cuentas de estas entidades transnacionales, dadas las limitaciones de los marcos regulatorios tradicionales. Han surgido varios mecanismos para cerrar esta brecha de rendición de cuentas, que abarcan regulaciones nacionales e internacionales, iniciativas lideradas por la industria e intervenciones de la sociedad civil. Este artículo ofrece una descripción general inclusiva de estos mecanismos (...

Enhancing Whistleblower Protection: It’s all about the Culture

Whistleblowers and their role as accountability and fraud prevention mechanism have recently been in the centre of attention. Despite several initiatives to encourage and motivate whistleblowers internationally, there are numerous recorded instances of retaliation and harassment practices. As a result, potential whistleblowers do not feel adequately protected to step up and raise their concerns. The improvement of the protection regime internationally and the establishment of a robust system of incentives requires going beyond the introduction of new rules. Emphasis needs to be given to corporate culture so that the existing culture of silence is replaced by a new culture of honesty, integrity and transparency. Drawing inspiration from the UK Bribery Act 2010, an attempt will be made to offer practical recommendations for this much-anticipated change of corporate culture to be initiated and for companies to be actively involved in this process. whistleblowers, culture, retaliation, speak-up, Bribery Act, accountability, transparency, incentives, harassment, rewards</jats:p

Research Notes: Regulatory or Non-Regulatory Corporate Governance - A Dilemma Between Statute and Codes of Best Practice

This article has been written by a student participant of the ‘Legal Research Methodologies in European Union and International Law’ workshop series as detailed in the three Research Notes - 'Legal Research Methodologies in European Union and International Law', by Tamara Hervey, Rob Cryer, Bal Sokhi-Bulley .  The article introduces the student’s PhD project and details some of the methodological research issues which the AHRC funded workshops have helped the student to address.</jats:p

Social Enterprises, Benefit Corporations and Community Interest Companies: The UK Landscape

AbstractThe present chapter deals with the social enterprises’ landscape in the United Kingdom, with emphasis on certified B corps, benefit corporations and community interest companies (CIC). Although the United Kingdom has the reputation of a jurisdiction that supports the shareholder value maximisation paradigm, it has introduced special rules for social enterprises and has facilitated the development of benefit corporations and B corps. The UK experience may be significantly different from the United States’ one, but it can operate as a roadmap for countries that aim at becoming more inclusive in terms of corporate social responsibility and social purpose.</jats:p

Accountability and multinational corporations: minding the gap and mechanisms for responsible business

In today’s global economy, Multinational Corporations (MNCs) wield substantial influence across industries, economies, and societies worldwide. This article addresses the vital issue of holding MNCs accountable for their actions. As MNCs navigate complex supply chains, diverse stakeholders, and intricate operational structures, the imperative for ethical, environmental, and social compliance becomes pronounced. The challenge lies in establishing accountability for these transnational entities, given the limitations of traditional regulatory frameworks. Various mechanisms have emerged to bridge this accountability gap, encompassing domestic and international regulations, industry-led initiatives, and civil society interventions. This article offers an inclusive overview of these mechanisms, analysing their strengths and limitations, and assessing their real-world efficacy. By examining the diverse approaches, the article contributes to discussions on fostering responsibility in an interconnected business landscapeEn la economía global actual, las corporaciones multinacionales (CMN) ejercen una influencia sustancial en industrias, economías y sociedades de todo el mundo. Este artículo aborda la cuestión vital de responsabilizar a las empresas multinacionales por sus acciones. Lo anterior, debido a que, a medida que las multinacionales navegan por complejas cadenas de suministro y por diversas partes interesadas y estructuras operativas intrincadas; el imperativo de cumplimiento ético, ambiental y social se vuelve inminente. El desafío radica en establecer la rendición de cuentas de estas entidades transnacionales, dadas las limitaciones de los marcos regulatorios tradicionales. Han surgido varios mecanismos para cerrar esta brecha de rendición de cuentas, que abarcan regulaciones nacionales e internacionales, iniciativas lideradas por la industria e intervenciones de la sociedad civil. Este artículo ofrece una descripción general inclusiva de estos mecanismos, analiza sus fortalezas y limitaciones y evalúa su eficacia en el mundo real. Al examinar los diversos enfoques, el artículo contribuye a los debates sobre el fomento de la responsabilidad en un panorama empresarial interconectad