Bienvenue sur le Village de la Justice.
Le 1er site de la communauté du droit, certifié 3e site Pro en France: Avocats, juristes, fiscalistes, notaires, commissaires de Justice, magistrats, RH, paralegals, étudiants... y trouvent services, informations, contacts et peuvent échanger et recruter. *
Aujourd'hui: 154 760 membres, 25886 articles, 126 982 messages sur les forums, 3 900 annonces d'emploi et stage... et 1 600 000 visites du site par mois en moyenne. *
FOCUS SUR...
• Petit lexique des nouveaux métiers du droit.
• Lancement du Chatbot IA de recherche avancée du Village de la justice.
LES HABITANTS
Membres
Nouvelles parutions
Guide de la négociation contractuelle
Un guide essentiel pour formaliser un accord juridiquement efficace
Printemps digital chez LexisNexis !
Fonds de commerce 2023 - Ce qu’il faut savoir
Des réponses concrètes aux différentes problématiques juridiques posées par les fonds de commerce
Sélection Liberalis du week-end : Reflets du Japon au Musée Cernuschi.
Une nouvelle sélection d’artistes par Liberalis et la galerie en ligne Target Art.
La chaîne "Vidéos et droit" du Village de la justice:
[Podcast] CEDH, les avancées de la justice climatique.
[1] Casino Group’s 2020 Vigilance Plan available in French at the following link : https://www.groupe-casino.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/CASINO_PLAN-DE-VIGILANCE_2020-VF-MAJ2907.pdf. Please note that the Casino Group does not seem to have translated this document in English, but has extracted the CSR and NFIS portions of its URD 2018 in English, which can be found at the following link and contains 71 pages (cross-references included) : https://www.groupe-casino.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Groupe-Casino-DDR-2018-VA.pdf
[2] On this topic, read Paul Mougeolle, Sur la conformité constitutionnelle de la proposition de loi relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre and Yann Quiennec La preuve de vigilance, un challenge d’interprétation.
[3] The Netherlands have adopted a due diligence law targeting specifically child labor on November 13th 2019, to enter into force in 2022. Norway has adopted a law on corporate transparency on June 10th 2021 (ApenhestsLoven) demanding that companies take all reasonable due diligence measures for human rights prevention in their supply chain and overall corporate activities. Germany adopted on June 11th 2021 a corporate duty of vigilance law (Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz) to avoid human rights violations in the corporate supply chain to enter into force on January 1st 2023.
[4] Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937, 23 February 2022, COM(2022) 71 final, available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/1_1_183885_prop_dir_susta_en.pdf. This proposal is completed by an annex available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/1_2_183888_annex_dir_susta_en.pdf. In parallel, the Commission has also presented a Communication on decent work worldwide for a global just transition and a sustainable recovery (23 February 2022, COM(2022) 66 final).
[5] For an more in-depth look at the difficulty for the plaintiffs to access remediation under the law on the corporate duty of vigilance and their effectiveness, see the article co-written by Stéphane Brabant and Elsa Savourey entitled “France’s Corporate Duty Law of Vigilance, A closer look at the penalties faced by Companies” (December 14th 2017), where the authors argued that “the Law’s provisions on civil liability afford limited opportunity for victims of adverse human rights impacts to bring actions before the courts, thereby falling short on the goal of remediation. However […] the Law’s set of penalties does act as an effective tool for ensuring corporate accountability and preventing human rights abuses through increased scrutiny and deterrence.” Full text available at :
https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/d32b6e38d5c199f8912367a5a0a6137f49d21d91.pdf
[6] Developed under the mandate of Secretary General Kofi Annan by UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Business and Human Rights John Ruggie, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, or UNGP, recognize the obligations of member states to protect human rights and the role of companies to follow the laws on human rights issued by those states. On June 16th 2011, the Human Rights Council unanimously approved the text, making it the first corporate responsibility initiative for human rights approved by the UN. Text available in English at :
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf
[7] On this topic, Principle 26 of the Guiding Principles encourages states to “take appropriate steps to ensure the effectiveness of domestic judicial mechanisms when addressing business-related human rights abuses, including considering ways to reduce legal, practical and other relevant barriers that could lead to a denial of access to remedy.” The integrated commentary likewise states that “ many barriers are the result of, or compounded by, the frequent imbalances between the parties to business-related human rights claims, such as in their financial resources, access to information and expertise.” It is thus one of the French judge’s duty, through the demand to publish the Vigilance Plan, to ensure any aggrieved party can have access to all the information necessary to access remediation and use the corporate duty of vigilance mechanism.
[8] On this topic, please refer to the preamble of resolution 76/300, available here : https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N22/442/77/PDF/N2244277.pdf?OpenElement
[9] It must be reminded that although the Proposal for the European Directive on Corporate Due Diligence includes a list of different contexts applicable, it is possible that the factual context, as interpreted by the French courts, integrates the international principles on human rights or more generally any soft law principles.
[10] See Report n°155 of Mr Louis SOUVET on the Proposed law on the fight against discriminations, explaining « This new regime does not constitute a “pure and simple” inversion of the burden of proof. In our law, the plaintiff had to prove his claim, but the new procedure seeks to establish a certain balance to force the parties to present their claim and allow a third party to decide. It already constitutes a considerable change that is not risk-free. This change is justified by the difficulties the plaintiffs have to prove their claims, as the low number of claims in front of the tribunals and the even lower number of court decisions in favor of the plaintiffs bear testimony of. » (unofficial translation by the authors of this article)
[11] Please note that principle 26 of the Guiding Principles warns states about the ineffectiveness of state-based judicial mechanisms when “State prosecutors lack adequate resources, expertise and support to meet the State’s own obligations to investigate individual and business involvement in human rights-related crimes.” A policy paper issued in September 2021 by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights strongly advocates for an administrative supervision of judges to ensure their advanced knowledge and training in human rights issues. Full paper in English accessible at : https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/ohchr-shift-enforcement-of-mhrdd.pdf