Compensation claim against Daimler and Rheinmetall
Working together with the Arbeitsstelle
Südliches Afrika (KASA), the Koordination Südliches Afrika (KOSA) and Medico
International, the ECCHR organized an expert discussion in the German Federal
Parliament for the members of the Committee for Human Rights and Humanitarian
Aid on 29 January 2010 . This expert discussion revolved around one pending
compensation claim in the US raised by victims of apartheid against Daimler,
Rheinmetall and three other corporations, as well as the position of the
federal government, which dismissed the suit. The ECCHR supported the claim of
the victims of apartheid through an amici curiae brief. The brief discussed the
meaning of judicial remedy for human rights violations. This legal opinion was
composed in collaboration with the New York Center for Constitutional Rights.
The claimants accuse Daimler and Rheinmetall of both violating human rights in South Africa themselves, and of supporting and facilitating state-sponsored human rights infringements through the delivery of relevant goods. In official statements made during the trial, the Federal Government made clear its rejection of the compensation claim. Among other factors, the parliament considers its sovereignty to have been injured by the claim. From the parliament's perspective, any such claim against German companies must first be brought forth in Germany. It should also be noted that the claim represents a threat for international trade, in so far as it establishes the legal insecurity of the corporations involved.
The expert discussion began with Tshepo Madlingozi's presentation of the background and current status of the claim in the US. Madlingozi is represents the South African group of claimants, the Khulumani Support Group. He put forth that many of the victims of apartheid have not received any appropriate compensation for the wrongdoing they suffered and all attempts to attain these in South Africa have failed. Legal action was thus pursued in the US, where the allowance of the claim in April 2009 was considered the first successful interim result. Miriam Saage-Maaß from the ECCHR then criticized the position of the German government. The claim involves grave human rights violations, which are in part recognized in common law as international crimes. As such the so-called principle universal jurisdiction can be applied, which means that every country is entitled to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction. Whether this universal jurisdiction also applies to civil liability claims is debatable. In any case it has been long recognized that the sovereignty of a state entails that its law - also civil law - can be executed extra-territorially, so long as it is not forbidden by a specific international law. Miriam Saage-Maaß also put forward the critique that the German government has, in her opinion, placed the economic interests of the affected corporation above concern for human rights.
Program director Miriam Saage-Maaß writes about the trial and its connection to transnational lawsuits in the article: „Business As Usual?" (in German) in Kritischen Justiz (1/2010). You find the article (in German) here.
The claimants accuse Daimler and Rheinmetall of both violating human rights in South Africa themselves, and of supporting and facilitating state-sponsored human rights infringements through the delivery of relevant goods. In official statements made during the trial, the Federal Government made clear its rejection of the compensation claim. Among other factors, the parliament considers its sovereignty to have been injured by the claim. From the parliament's perspective, any such claim against German companies must first be brought forth in Germany. It should also be noted that the claim represents a threat for international trade, in so far as it establishes the legal insecurity of the corporations involved.
The expert discussion began with Tshepo Madlingozi's presentation of the background and current status of the claim in the US. Madlingozi is represents the South African group of claimants, the Khulumani Support Group. He put forth that many of the victims of apartheid have not received any appropriate compensation for the wrongdoing they suffered and all attempts to attain these in South Africa have failed. Legal action was thus pursued in the US, where the allowance of the claim in April 2009 was considered the first successful interim result. Miriam Saage-Maaß from the ECCHR then criticized the position of the German government. The claim involves grave human rights violations, which are in part recognized in common law as international crimes. As such the so-called principle universal jurisdiction can be applied, which means that every country is entitled to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction. Whether this universal jurisdiction also applies to civil liability claims is debatable. In any case it has been long recognized that the sovereignty of a state entails that its law - also civil law - can be executed extra-territorially, so long as it is not forbidden by a specific international law. Miriam Saage-Maaß also put forward the critique that the German government has, in her opinion, placed the economic interests of the affected corporation above concern for human rights.
Program director Miriam Saage-Maaß writes about the trial and its connection to transnational lawsuits in the article: „Business As Usual?" (in German) in Kritischen Justiz (1/2010). You find the article (in German) here.