Advanced

Rebuttable Presumption of Parental Companies Liability - The EU Courts’ and the Strasbourg Court’s Common Understanding of a Fair Trial

Falkung, Annie LU (2015) JAEM01 20151
Department of Law
Abstract
Human right is an area of law under constant development. The purpose of this thesis is to analyse whether there is a conflict between the EU’s presumption of liability of parental companies owing 100 percent of its subsidiary and the company’s human rights to a fair trial under the European Convention of Human Rights Article 6.

Both bodies of law are involved when considering a conflict between the rebuttable presumption of liability and the right to a fair trial. The key issue revolves around the procedure under which the company is presumed liable.

The use of presumption exists in both Courts and is not in itself considered an infringement as long as it is based on facts. The Strasbourg Courts requires that there is a possibility... (More)
Human right is an area of law under constant development. The purpose of this thesis is to analyse whether there is a conflict between the EU’s presumption of liability of parental companies owing 100 percent of its subsidiary and the company’s human rights to a fair trial under the European Convention of Human Rights Article 6.

Both bodies of law are involved when considering a conflict between the rebuttable presumption of liability and the right to a fair trial. The key issue revolves around the procedure under which the company is presumed liable.

The use of presumption exists in both Courts and is not in itself considered an infringement as long as it is based on facts. The Strasbourg Courts requires that there is a possibility for a full both judicial and fact-based review, even in mere administrative procedures and does not rule the presumption of liability contrary to the presumption of innocence.

The procedural process within the EU has received critique for its investigation and judicial reviews however, the process is still compatible with Article 6 ECHR due to the ability to appeal the decision to a judicial body that has full judicial power, which is one of the requirements of Article 6 ECHR.

In cases of rebuttable presumption of parental liability, the fourth instant doctrine only allows the Strasbourg Court to assess if the procedural rights of Article 6 of the Convention is applied and the Strasbourg Court is in fact reluctant to substitute facts of law and finding of liability in cases of 100 percent ownership with findings of their own.

This thesis finds that even if considered difficult, it is possible to rebut the presumption of parental liability under EU law and shows that any conflict on the thesis subject would depend on a case-by-case basis. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Falkung, Annie LU
supervisor
organization
course
JAEM01 20151
year
type
H1 - Master's Degree (One Year)
subject
language
English
id
5463720
date added to LUP
2015-06-03 14:27:25
date last changed
2015-06-11 12:06:24
@misc{5463720,
  abstract     = {Human right is an area of law under constant development. The purpose of this thesis is to analyse whether there is a conflict between the EU’s presumption of liability of parental companies owing 100 percent of its subsidiary and the company’s human rights to a fair trial under the European Convention of Human Rights Article 6.

Both bodies of law are involved when considering a conflict between the rebuttable presumption of liability and the right to a fair trial. The key issue revolves around the procedure under which the company is presumed liable. 

The use of presumption exists in both Courts and is not in itself considered an infringement as long as it is based on facts. The Strasbourg Courts requires that there is a possibility for a full both judicial and fact-based review, even in mere administrative procedures and does not rule the presumption of liability contrary to the presumption of innocence.

The procedural process within the EU has received critique for its investigation and judicial reviews however, the process is still compatible with Article 6 ECHR due to the ability to appeal the decision to a judicial body that has full judicial power, which is one of the requirements of Article 6 ECHR.

In cases of rebuttable presumption of parental liability, the fourth instant doctrine only allows the Strasbourg Court to assess if the procedural rights of Article 6 of the Convention is applied and the Strasbourg Court is in fact reluctant to substitute facts of law and finding of liability in cases of 100 percent ownership with findings of their own.

This thesis finds that even if considered difficult, it is possible to rebut the presumption of parental liability under EU law and shows that any conflict on the thesis subject would depend on a case-by-case basis.},
  author       = {Falkung, Annie},
  language     = {eng},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Rebuttable Presumption of Parental Companies Liability - The EU Courts’ and the Strasbourg Court’s Common Understanding of a Fair Trial},
  year         = {2015},
}