Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

General Reports of the XIXth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law Rapports Généraux du XIXème Congrès de l'Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé pp 469–490Cite as

Damages for the Infringement of Human Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GRIA,volume 24))

Abstract

The general report analyses the basis and the elements of the cause of action for damages in the case of violations of human rights. The key points of debate are the role of national constitutions and the supranational human rights conventions for the choice of the legal basis for a claim and the scope of the damages remedy. Alternatives to tort law, such as special indemnity schemes, which shift the cause of action toward public law, are also discussed. The concluding remarks assess the developments in tort law and public liability law and the role ascribed to these rules by the courts in the process of enforcement of human rights in national legal systems.

E. Bagińska, Damages for Violations of Human Rights: A Comparative Analysis in: E. Bagińska (ed.), Damages for Violations of Human Rights. A Comparative Study of Domestic Legal Systems, Volume 9 of the Series Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, pp. 443–478 (2016), © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016. With permission of Springer.

IV.A.1. Les dommages-intérêts pour violation des droits de l’Homme.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This report to The XIXth INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF COMPARATIVE LAW IN VIENNA 2014 is based on 20 reports that came from 13 European civil law jurisdictions, including 6 post-socialist countries, 5 reports from common law/mixed jurisdiction countries (the U.K., Ireland, Canada, the U.S. and Israel) and 2 reports that represent South America (Argentina, Brazil). Hence, the analysis has been inadvertently dominated by legal developments in Europe, which in addition have been heavily influenced by the Council of Europe (all European reports) as well as by the law of the EU.

    The list of reports include the following: Argentina (Hortensia D.T. Gutierrez Posse), Brazil (Antonio Celso Calves Pereira), Canada (Jane Glenn), Croatia (Sasa Niksic), the Czech Republic (Pavel Sturma, Veronika Bilkova), Estonia (Ene Andresen), France (Xavier Phillippe), Germany (Andreas von Arnauld), Greece (Ioannis Stribis), Ireland (Noelle Higgins), Israel (Tamara Gidron, Haya Zandberg, Iris Canor), Italy (Graziella Romeo), Norway (Bjarte Thorson), Poland (Michał Balcerzak), Portugal (Maria Jose Rangel de Mesquita), Romania (Corneliu-Liviu Popescu), Slovenia (Samo Bardutzky), Turkey (Zeynep Oya Usai Kanzler), the United Kingdom (Merris Amos) and the United States (Jacques deLisle).

  2. 2.

    In this report, when referring to a country, detailed citations to national reports are omitted. Almost all the reports have been published in E. Bagińska (ed.) Damages for Violations of Human Rights - A Comparative Study of Domestic Legal Systems, Springer 2016.

  3. 3.

    I shall not embark on the discussion of various definitions and concepts of the human/basic/fundamental rights, but, where relevant, the differences between the protection of international and constitutional rights will be described.

  4. 4.

    See art. 2 of the Protocol no 30 on the Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to Poland and to the United Kingdom.

  5. 5.

    See D. Oliver, J. Fedtke (eds.). 2007. Human Rights and the Private Sphere - A Comparative Analysis, 3, 499 ff. London: Routledge Cavendish. See also D. Fairgrieve, M. Andenas, J Bell (eds.). 2002. Tort liability of public authorities in comparative perspective. London: BICL.

  6. 6.

    See the general report to the CONGRESS by V. Trstenjak, ‘The influence of human rights and basic rights in private law’ (in this volume).

  7. 7.

    By ‘constitutional level’ I mean a domestic constitutional act (or acts), such as the Constitution or basic laws as well as any national rules of the constitutional ranking.

  8. 8.

    § 25 of the Estonian Constitution (1992), the Slovenian Constitution 1991—Bill of Rights, § 15.

  9. 9.

    The Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, Estonia, Croatia, Turkey Brazil and Portugal.

  10. 10.

    Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia.

  11. 11.

    Bivens vs. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388.

  12. 12.

    Seneca College vs. Bhadauria [1981] 2 SCR.

  13. 13.

    Explicitly in Germany, Portugal, Italy and the U.S.

  14. 14.

    Art. 5 of the Brazilian Constitution of 1988.

  15. 15.

    See Shelton, Dinah. 2011. International Law in Domestic Systems. In General Reports of the XVIIIth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law/Rapports Généraux du XVIIIème Congrès de l’Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé, ed. Karen Brown, David Snyder, no. 21.8. Dordercht et al.: Springer.

  16. 16.

    After the 2001 amendments to the Constitution—see the Czech report, at D.

  17. 17.

    Polish Sad Najwyzszy, judgment of 6 May 2010, II CSK 640/09, OSNZD A/2011, item 4.

  18. 18.

    Israel has 11 Basic laws. The two Basic Laws relevant here are the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation (both dated 1992).

  19. 19.

    See the report for the U.K., at 7.1, citing the judgment R vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Greenfield [2005] UKHL 14, [2005] 1 WLR 673.

  20. 20.

    See C. O’Cinneide, Irish Constitutional Law and Direct Horizontal Effect—A Successful Experiment?, in: D. Oliver, J. Fedtke (eds.) Human Rights and the Private Sphere, p. 213, 243 ff.

  21. 21.

    Seneca College vs. Bhadauria [1981] 2 SCR, Honda Canada Inc. vs. Keays [2008] 2 SCR 362—both cases concerned the Ontario Human Rights Code.

  22. 22.

    See Art. 63 §1 American Convention on Human Rights, art. 27 §1 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1998/2004).

  23. 23.

    See decision Corte di Cassazione no. 28507 of 23 December 2005—the Italian report, at 2.2.

  24. 24.

    This example comes from the Norwegian report (at 7); the domestic cases in the aftermath of Lindheim et al. vs. Norway (12 June 2012—breach of art. 1 of prot. 1 to the ECHR by the regulation on ground lease contracts) are pending.

  25. 25.

    See the U.K., report, at 7.1.

  26. 26.

    See e.g. W.V.H. Rogers, Tort law and human rights: a new experience, in: H. Koziol, B. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2002, Wien/New York 2003, 35, 38.

  27. 27.

    See R vs. Secretary of State cited above.

  28. 28.

    The Canadian courts tend to refer to U.S. case law when interpreting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms—see E. Barendt, The United States and Canada: State Action, Constitutional Rights and Private Actors, D. Oliver, J. Fedtke (eds.) Human Rights and the Private Sphere, p. 398.

  29. 29.

    Under the Supreme Court ruling in Dolphin Delivery (Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union [RWDSU], Local 580 vs. Dolphin Delivery Ltd [1986] 2 SCR 573.

  30. 30.

    For example, since 2006 the Ontario Human Rights Code, s 46.1 authorises a court that, in an ordinary civil proceeding (e.g. for wrongful dismissal under the general private law contract rules), finds that one of the parties has infringed a Code right (e.g. discriminatory dismissal) of the other, to make a remedial order for payment of monetary and/or non-monetary compensation; however, this provision ‘does not permit a person to commence an action based solely on an infringement of a right under Part I’ of the Code.

  31. 31.

    The German reporter cites Walter Jellinek, Verwaltungsrecht, Berlin: Springer, 3rd ed., 1931, p. 321.

  32. 32.

    The U.K. reporter cites the judgment R (on the application of Wilkinson) vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners [2005] UKHL 30, [2005] 1 WLR 1718.

  33. 33.

    See the Supreme Court in Estonia: judgment of 26 June 2013, 3-2-1-18-13- the Estonian report at A.4.

  34. 34.

    In Germany and Portugal, as well as in other countries, special entitlements to compensatory remedies supersede other titles based on sacrificial encroachment.

  35. 35.

    Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (‘Racial Equality Directive’) and of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (‘Employment Equality Directive’).

  36. 36.

    Greece: art. 105 of the civil code expressly States that ‘The State shall be under a duty to make good any damage caused by the unlawful acts or omissions of its organs in the exercise of public authority, except where the unlawful act or omission is in breach of an existing provision that is intended to serve the public interest.

  37. 37.

    Except for Israel, where the Civil Wrongs Ordinance in its current version grants immunity to civil servants, including State organs for acts performed in the course of governmental duty and in a public capacity. See the Israeli report, at A.

  38. 38.

    Germany, Italy, Portugal.

  39. 39.

    Greece, Turkey, Brazil, Poland.

  40. 40.

    See the Slovenian report, at 5 (c)i.

  41. 41.

    HRA, s. 3(1) and s. 4.

  42. 42.

    See i.a. the reports for the U.S., Greece, the U.K. and Germany.

  43. 43.

    Law of 24 March 2001, no. 89.

  44. 44.

    For example, in Norway (the Norwegian report at 1.1).

  45. 45.

    Damages for violations of human rights are treated as damages for torts; hence tax rules apply equally to all categories (in most countries they are tax exempt).

  46. 46.

    E.g. in Norway, see the Norwegian report at 4.2.

  47. 47.

    See Court of Cassation, decision no. 10894 of 11 May 2006 and the Italian report, at 4.

  48. 48.

    The Law on the Settlement of Some Applications Lodged with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) by Means of Paying Compensation of 2010 (No. 6384).

  49. 49.

    18 U.S.C. §§ 2331–2338.

  50. 50.

    ICJ, judgment of 3 February 2012, Germany vs. Italy.

  51. 51.

    Mohammed vs. Palestinian Authority, 132 S. Ct. 1702 (2012).

  52. 52.

    See the Israeli report, at B.

  53. 53.

    This is the policy in Slovenia and Turkey, in particular.

  54. 54.

    €1.25 for every month a person spent in a concentration camp.

  55. 55.

    Loi no. 9140 with respect to the murdered and the disappeared (1995) and Loi no. 10.559 with respect to forced labourers (2002).

  56. 56.

    Foundation “Remembrance, Responsibility and Future” (Erinnerung, Verantwortung und Zukunft, EVZ).

  57. 57.

    See the Italian report, at 3.2.

  58. 58.

    See D. Shelton, Remedies in International Human Rights Law (Second Edition), OUP 2006, p. 389.

  59. 59.

    See D. Shelton, ibidem, pp. 389–390.

  60. 60.

    The UN “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law” adopted in December 2005, U.N. GA Res. 60/147 of 16 December 2005.

  61. 61.

    In 1992 the newly established Slovenian authorities erased approximately 25,000 non-citizens without any notification and without being heard—see the Slovenian report at B5.

  62. 62.

    See the German report, at IV.

  63. 63.

    See the French report, at D.

  64. 64.

    See the U.K. report at 6.2.

  65. 65.

    See the U.S. report, pp. 22–23.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Department of Civil Law, Gdańsk University, Gdańsk, Poland

    Ewa Bagińska

Authors
  1. Ewa Bagińska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ewa Bagińska .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Law, University of Vienna, Vienna, Wien, Austria

    Martin Schauer

  2. Department of European, International and Comparative Law, University of Vienna, Vienna, Wien, Austria

    Bea Verschraegen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bagińska, E. (2017). Damages for the Infringement of Human Rights. In: Schauer, M., Verschraegen, B. (eds) General Reports of the XIXth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law Rapports Généraux du XIXème Congrès de l'Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law(), vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1066-2_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1066-2_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-024-1064-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-024-1066-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation