Exploring the Limits of Ukrainian Tort Law from Business and Human Rights Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21564/2225-6555.2024.2%20(26).316595Keywords:
tort law, business and human rights, wrongfulness, fault, causation, vicarious liability, joint infliction, class actions, environmental harm, jurisdictionAbstract
This paper examines the capacity of Ukrainian tort law to address business-related human rights violations, using a model case to evaluate its effectiveness. It focuses on how the legal framework responds to challenges involving corporate misconduct, particularly in scenarios where direct and indirect actors are implicated in human rights abuses. The discussion highlights four critical issues: the interplay between tort law and human rights law, liability for indirect involvement, jurisdictional challenges, and mechanisms for collective redress.
The analysis reveals several systemic shortcomings in Ukrainian tort law. The concept of wrongfulness is narrowly tied to explicit statutory breaches, limiting its applicability in cases of subtle or systemic violations. Rigid causation requirements and the conflation of fault and wrongfulness further impede the effective use of tort law in addressing complex cases involving multiple actors. The framework for vicarious liability and joint infliction remains underdeveloped, posing additional barriers to holding entities accountable for indirect involvement in human rights violations.
Despite these limitations, Ukrainian procedural law offers some avenues for addressing collective harms, such as the joinder of multiple claims and representation by NGOs, although the absence of a formal class action mechanism undermines litigation efficiency. Jurisdictional provisions demonstrate flexibility, accommodating cases with international elements and cross-border implications.
The paper concludes that while Ukrainian tort law faces significant doctrinal and procedural challenges, these are not insurmountable. Through creative legal strategies and ongoing reforms, the framework has the potential to evolve into a more robust mechanism for addressing corporate accountability in human rights contexts.
References
Deva, S., Ramasastry, A., Wettstein, F., & Santoro, M. (2019). Editorial: Business and Human Rights Scholarship: Past Trends and Future Directions. Business and Human Rights Journal, 4(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2019.17
Cragg, W. (2012). Business and human rights. Edward Elgar.
Curzi, L. C. (2020). General principles for business and human rights in international law. Brill Nijhoff.
McCorquodale, R. (2024). Business and human rights. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780192855855.001.0001
Muchlinski, P. (2022). Advanced introduction to business and human rights. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Rodríguez Garavito, C. A. (Ed.). (2017). Business and human rights : beyond the end of the beginning. Cambridge University Press.
Rouas, V. (2022). Achieving Access to Justice in a Business and Human Rights Context. : An Assessment of Litigation and Regulatory Responses in European Civil-Law Countries. University of London Press.
Sullivan, R., & Robinson, M. (2017). Business and Human Rights : Dilemmas and Solutions (First edition.). Taylor and Francis.
Faracik, B., Letnar Černič, J., & Uvarova, O. (2024). Business and Human Rights in Central and Eastern Europe: Trends, Challenges and Prospects. Business and Human Rights Journal, 9(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2024.6
Nagaivska, D., & Uvarova, O. (2024). Companies Operating in Conflict-Affected Environments Without Impacting the Conflict: Between Regular and Heightened Human Rights Due Diligence. Business and Human Rights Journal, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2024.14
Uvarova, O. (2021). Business and Human Rights in Times of Global Emergencies: Comparative Perspective. Comparative Law Review (Toruń, Poland), 26, 225-253. https://doi.org/10.12775/CLR.2020.009
Uvarova, O. Business and Human Rights: National Baseline Assessment. Executive Summery (Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, Danish Institute for Human Rights, 2019).
Ramasastry, A. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility Versus Business and Human Rights: Bridging the Gap Between Responsibility and Accountability. Journal of Human Rights, 14(2), 237–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2015.1037953
Ruggie, J. G. (2013). Just business : multinational corporations and human rights (1st edition.). W. W. Norton & Company.
Joseph, S., & Kyriakakis, J. (2023). From soft law to hard law in business and human rights and the challenge of corporate power. Leiden Journal of International Law, 36(2), 335-361. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156522000826
Deva, S., Ramasastry, A., & Wettstein, F. (2023). Beyond human rights due diligence: what else do we need? Business and Human Rights Journal, 8(2), 133-134. https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2023.33
Aristova, E. and O’Regan, C. (eds), Civil Liability for Human Rights Violations: A Handbook for Practitioners (Bonavero Institute for Human Rights 2022). Retrieved from: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/bonavero-institute-of-human-rights/content/section-index/civil-liability-human-rights-violations
Wagner, G. ‘Tort Law and Human Rights’ in M. Saage-Maaß et al. (eds.), Transnational Legal Activism in Global Value Chains, Interdisciplinary Studies in Human Rights (Springer, 2021) 209, 212.
Doe 1 et al v Apple Inc. et al, case number 1:19-cv-03737, from District Of Columbia Court, https://www.classaction.org/media/doe-et-al-v-apple-inc-et-al_1.pdf (accessed 1 April 2022);
International Labour Organization, ‘The Rana Plaza Accident and its Aftermath’ https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/geip/WCMS_614394/lang--en/index.htm (accessed 1 April 2022).
See Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc [2019] UKSC 20;
Okpabi & Others v Royal Dutch Shell Plc & Another [2021] UKSC 3
Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013);
Kadie Kalma & Ors v African Minerals Ltd & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 144.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Business and Human Rights – Access to Remedy (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020) 64-7.
Karnaukh, B. (2022). ‘Ukraine: the Untapped Potential of Tort Law’ in E. Aristova & U. Grusic (eds.), Civil Remedies and Human Rights in Flux: Key Legal Developments in Selected Jurisdictions (Hart Publishing, 2022).
Case no 910/20261/16 (Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, 26 November 2019) para 55;
Case no 910/11027/18 (Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, 25 May 2021) para 7.4.
Otradnova, O. (2014). Problems of Improving the Mechanism of Civil Law Regulation of Tort Obligations. Kyiv, Yurinkom Inter.
Cassel, D. (2016). ‘Outlining the Case for a Common Law Duty of Care of Business to Exercise Human Rights Due Diligence’ (2016) 1(2) Business and Human Rights Journal 179;
Palombo, D. (2019). ‘The Duty of Care of the Parent Company: A Comparison between French Law, UK Precedents and the Swiss Proposals’. Business and Human Rights Journal 4(2) 265.
van Dam, C. and Gregor, F. (2017). ‘Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights vis-à-vis legal duty of care’ in Juan José Álvarez Rubio, Katerina Yiannibas (eds.), Human Rights in Business. Removal of Barriers to Access to Justice in the European Union (London: Routlege, 2017) 119.
Spasybo-Fateyeva, I. (ed.). (2021). Abuse of Right. Kharkiv: ECUS. (in Ukrainian).
Karnaukh, B. (2021). Standards of Proof: A Comparative Overview from the Ukrainian Perspective. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 2(10), 25–40.
Case no 750/8676/15-ts (Judgement of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, 30 May 2018);
Case no 910/5073/19 (Judgement of the Commercial Cassation Court, 12 December 2019);
Case no 127/22717/18 (Judgement of the Civil Cassation Court, 12 March 2020).
Case no 127/27566/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court, 7 November 2018);
Case no 347/46/16 (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court, 11 February 2019);
Case no 243/7452/15-ц (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court, 6 February 2019).
Case no 910/11027/18 (Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, 25 May 2021).
Gilead, I. Michael D. Green and Bernhard A. Koch (eds.), Proportional Liability: Analytical and Comparative Perspectives (De Gruyter, 2013).
Karnaukh, B. Fault as a Precondition for Civil Law Liability (Kharkiv: Pravo, 2014) 38–38 (in Ukrainian).
Burlaka, I. Obligations to Compensate Damage Caused with No Fault (Kharkiv: Pravo, 2016) (in Ukrainian).
Case no 918/1131/20 (Judgment of the Commercial Cassation Court, 2 November 2021);
Case no 909/374/18 (Judgment of the Commercial Cassation Court 22 July 2019), para 27;
Case no 904/5489/18 (Judgment of the Commercial Cassation Court, 16 April 2020), para 8.2;
Case no 686/13212/19 (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court, 19 March 2020).
Uvarova, O. Business and Human Rights: National Baseline Assessment. Executive Summery (Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, Danish Institute for Human Rights, 2019), 4.
Case no 908/137/18 (Judgment of the Grand Chamber of Supreme Court, 24 November 2020).
Case no 279/3572/18 (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court, 22 July 2020).
Сase no 569/7901/16-ts (Judgment of the Grand Chamber of Supreme Court, 27 April 2021).
Case no 755/17365/15-ts (Judgment of the Grand Chamber of Supreme Court, 29 August 2018).
Judgment no 4-rp/2001 of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in re ‘in advance notification of peaceful assemblies’19 April 2001.
Savchyn, M. Comparative Constitutional Law (Kyiv: Jurincom Inter, 2019) 17–19 (in Ukrainian).
Judgment no 15-rp/2011 of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in re ‘protection of the rights of credit services consumers’, 10 November 2011.
Case no 2012/4613/2012 (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court, 25 February 2019).
Case no 372/2085/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court 12 October 2020);
Case no 372/3580/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court 30 September 2020);
Case no 372/2084/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court 29 September 2020);
Case no 372/2493/17 (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court 23 September 2020);
Case no 372/569/17 (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court 16 September 2020);
Case no 372/2165/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court 1 September 2020).
Case no 283/518/17-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court, 18 November 2020).
Dzemyuk v Ukraine, no 42488/02, (ECtHR 4 September 2014).
Case no 372/980/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court 29 July 2020);
Case no 372/724/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court 8 April 2020);
Case no 372/1243/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court 18 March 2020);
Case no 372/771/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court 12 March 2020);
Case no 372/1308/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court 12 March 2020.
Case No 200/10801/14-ts (Judgment of the Babushkinskyi District Court of Dnipropetrovsk, 24 December 2014);
Case No 200/10799/14-ts (Judgment of the Babushkinskyi District Court of Dnipropetrovsk, 24 December 2014);
Case No 753/24154/15-ts (Judgment of the Darnytskyi District Court of Kyiv, 6 September 2018);
Case No 756/2925/17 (Judgment of the Obolonskyi District Court of Kyiv, 29 March 2018);
Case No 592/5801/14-ts (Judgment of the Kovpakivskyi District Court of Sumy 3 December 2014);
Case No 756/2925/17 (Judgment of the Supreme Court, 18 April 2019).
Report of the State Bureau of Investigation on Investigation of ‘Maidan cases’ as of January 2022 (01 February 2022), https://dbr.gov.ua/spravi-majdanu/news/zvit-pro-rozsliduvannya-sprav-majdanu-za-sichen-2022-roku (accessed 1 April 2022);
Maidan Cases: 2021 in Numbers and Facts (Infographic) (20 November 2021), https://www.gp.gov.ua/ua/posts/spravi-maidanu-2021-rik-u-cifrax-i-faktax-infografika (accessed 1 April 2022).
Case no 570/5316/18 (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court, 26 January 2022).
Case No 212/7705/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court, 25 April 2018).
Case no 904/5489/18 (Judgment of the Commercial Cassation Court, 16 April 2020);
Case no 335/8271/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court, 4 September 2019);
Case no 753/10817/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court 21 May 2021)
Case no 6-13344sv10 (Judgment of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, 6 April 2011).
Case no 904/5489/18 (Judgment of Commercial Cassation Court, 16 April 2020);
Case no 753/6519/19 (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court, 14 April 2021).
Case no 753/10817/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court 21 May 2021).
Chambers R. & Martin, J. ‘United States: Potential Paths Forward after the Demise of the Alien Tort Statute’ in E. Aristova & U. Grusic (eds.), Civil Remedies and Human Rights in Flux: Key Legal Developments in Selected Jurisdictions (Hart Publishing, 2022) 351, 357.
Case no 0909/4190/12 (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court, 26 September 2018);
Case no 753/21343/14-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court, 04 June 2021);
Case No 740/967/16-ts (Judgement of the Civil Cassation Court, 29 May 2019). Case no 6-168tss13 (Judgment of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, 12 February 2014).
Case no 6-13993св14 (Decision of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine 21 May 2014).
Case no 740/967/16-ts (Decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, 22 November 2018);
Case no 740/967/16-ts (Judgment of Civil Cassation Court, 29 May 2019).
Case no 693/10/17 (Judgment of the Zhashkiskyi District Court, 15 April 2019);
Case no 916/3878/19 (Judgment of the Economic Court of Odesa region, 2 July 2020);
Case no 922/4834/15 (Judgment of the Economic Court of Kharkiv region, 17 December 2015);
Case no 914/2612/16 (Judgment of the Economic Court of Lviv region, 2 February 2017).
Case no 372/980/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court 29 July 2020);
Case no 372/724/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court 8 April 2020);
Case no 372/1243/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court 18 March 2020);
Case no 372/771/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court 12 March 2020);
Case no 372/1308/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court 12 March 2020).
Case no 283/518/17-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court, 18 November 2020).
Case no 373/239/18 (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court, 28 October 2020);
Case no 807/1314/17 (Judgment of the Administrative Cassation Court, 29 September 2021);
Case no 826/9175/18 (Judgment of the Administrative Cassation Court, 26 February 2020).
Case no 539/369/19 (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court, 28 August 2019);
Case no 766/10892/16-ts (Judgment of the Civil Cassation Court, 8 November 2019);
Case no 1340/3880/18 ((Judgment of the Administrative Cassation Court, 24 November 2021).
Case no 904/6125/20 (Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, 15 June 2021).
Case no 904/6125/20 (Decision of the Economic Court of Dnipropetrovskyi region, 16 August 2021).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Bohdan Karnaukh
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
