Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T21:57:29.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COMPANIES AND THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2015

Peter Oliver
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Justice and the US Supreme Court on the fundamental rights of commercial companies. The rights considered include property, the privilege against self-incrimination, freedom of speech, double jeopardy, the right to make political donations, and the freedom of religion. The article highlights the dangers of taking the fundamental rights of companies too far, as has recently occurred in the US; and it advocates a cautious and coordinated approach to this delicate issue, which has become increasingly important on both sides of the Atlantic.

Keywords

companiescomparative lawEU lawhuman rightsUS law
Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 64 , Issue 3 , July 2015 , pp. 661 - 696
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This quip is attributed to Lord Thurlow (1778–1792) Lord Chancellor by Poynder, J, Literary Extracts (J Hatchard and Son 1844)Google Scholar vol 1, 268 and frequently quoted eg by Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-58/12P Groupe Gascogne [2014] OJ C39/3, para 128 and Coffee, JC Jr, ‘“No Soul to Kick: No Body To Be Damned”: an Unscandalized Enquiry into the Problem of Corporate Punishment’ (1981) 79(3) MichLRev 386Google Scholar.

2 The words ‘company’ and ‘corporation’ will be used here interchangeably to denote commercial entities unless otherwise indicated.

3 The European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) found Russia in breach of art 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention of Human Rights (right to property) and art 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial) (Oao Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v Russia, App No 14902/04 (2012) 54 EHRR 19); and the Court subsequently awarded the shareholders €1.9bn damages (ibid, [2014] ECHR 853).

4 573 US ___ (2014), available at <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf>.

5 558 US 310 (2010).

6 ‘European law’ is used here to mean the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) and EU law.

7 eg the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises at <http://mneguidelines.oecd.org> and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights at <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf>. See Clapham, A, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors (OUP 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ch 6; Korvas, M, Corporate Obligations under International Law (OUP 2013)Google Scholar; and Ruggie, J, Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights (Norton 2013)Google Scholar. For a rare binding measure, see Directive 2014/95 of the European Parliament and the Council [2014] OJ L330/1, which requires large undertakings to disclose inter alia their performance regarding ‘environmental, social and employment matters, respect for human rights, anti-corruption and bribery matters’ (art 1).

8 Dewey, J, ‘The Historic Background of Corporate Legal Personality’ (1926) 35 YaleLJ 655Google Scholar.

9 eg Avi-Yonah, RS, ‘The Cyclical Transformations of the Corporate Form: A Historical Perspective on Corporate Social Responsibility’ (2005) 30 DelJCorpL 767Google Scholar and ‘Citizens United and the Corporate Form’ [2010] WisLRev 999; Petrin, M, ‘Reconceptualising the Nature of the Firm—From Nature to Function’ (2013) 118 Penn State Law Review 1Google Scholar; Stephens, B, ‘Are Corporations People? Corporate Personhood under the Constitution and International Law’ (2013) 44 RutgersLJ 1Google Scholar; and Tucker, A, ‘Flawed Assumptions: A Corporate Law Analysis of Free Speech and Corporate Personhood in Citizens United’ (2011) 61 CaseWResLRev 497Google Scholar.

10 [1897] AC 22.

11 [31]. See also Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd [1961] AC 12 (PC).

12 Per Lord Sumption delivering the leading judgment in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34, [34]. See also Gower and Davies, Principles of Modern Company Law (9th edn, Thomson Reuter 2012)Google Scholar 214ff.

13 Helfman, N, (2010) 114 American Jurisprudence, Proof of Facts 3d 403Google Scholar.

14 Belgium v Spain (Barcelona Traction) [1970] ICJ Rep 4; Agrotexim v Greece, App No 14807/89 (1995) 21 EHRR 250.

15 The term ‘stakeholders’ will be used here to denote individuals involved in the company as shareholders, directors or (other) members of staff.

16 This phenomenon is recognized in international law: Barcelona Traction (n 14) paras 59ff and United States v Italy (ELSI) [1989] ICJ Rep 15. However, these rulings would appear to have no direct bearing on municipal law.

17 Maitland, FW, Collected Papers (Fischer, HAL (ed), 3rd vol) (CUP 1911)Google Scholar 307.

18 Miller, D, ‘Guns, Inc.: Citizens United, McDonald, and the Future of Corporate Constitutional Rights’ (2011) 86 NYULRev 887Google Scholar, 909 and sources cited there.

19 435 US 765 (1977) 779ff.

20 What follows in no way purports to be an exhaustive survey. See Blumberg, P, ‘The Corporate Entity in an Era of Multinational Corporations’ (1990) 15 DelJCorpL 283Google Scholar, 291; Mayer, C, ‘Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and the Bill of Rights’ (1990) 41 HastingsLJ 577Google Scholar; Miller (n 18); Tushnet, M, ‘Do For-Profit Corporations Have Rights of Religious Conscience?’ (2013) 99 CornellLRev Online 70Google Scholar, 71; Willis, S, ‘Corporations, Taxes, and Religion: the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Contraceptive Cases’ (2013) 65 SCLRev 1Google Scholar, 35.

21 Covington & Lexington Turnpike Road Co v Sandford, 164 US 578 (1896) 592.

22 New York Times v Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964) (media corporations); Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v Virginia Citizens Consumer Council 425 US 748 (1976) (commercial speech, ie advertising).

23 The best-known proponent of the importance of the ‘hearer’ was Meiklejohn, Alexander. His major work was Free Speech and its Relation to Self-Government (Harper 1948)Google Scholar, expanded and retitled as Political Freedom: The Constitutional Principle of the People (Harper Collins 1960). See Sir Laws, John, ‘Meiklejohn, the First Amendment and Free Speech in English Law’ in Loveland, I (ed), Importing the First Amendment – Freedom of Speech and Expression in Britain, Europe and the USA (Hart 1998)Google Scholar 123, 136.

24 Marshall v Barlow's, Inc. 436 US 307 (1978), 325 (finding a corporate right against inspections by workplace safety regulators without a warrant). However, the Fourth Amendment does not prevent the issue of subpoenas compelling the production of pre-existing documents: US v Hubbell 530 US 27 (2000), [34]–[36] and Slobogin, C, ‘Subpoenas and Privacy’ (2005) 54 DePaulLRev 805Google Scholar.

25 United States v Morton Salt Co. (1950) 338 US 632, 651–2; and see generally Federal Communications Commission v AT&T, 562 U.S. __ (2011).

26 United States v Martin Linen Supply Co. 430 US 564 (1977).

27 Pembina Mining Co. v Pennsylvania 125 US 181 (1877).

28 ibid 184.

29 198 US 45 (1905). The ‘now infamous’ description is to be found in Nowak, JE and Rotunda, RD, Constitutional Law (8th edn, West 2010)Google Scholar 472.

30 eg Coppage v Kansas 236 US 1 (1915) (state law making it a criminal offence for an employer to preclude his staff from joining a trade union) and Adkins v Children's Hospital (1923) 261 US 525 (setting minimum wages for women).

31 208 US 161 (1908).

32 247 US 251 (1918).

33 See also Schechter Poultry v United States, 295 US 495 (1935) (federal labour standards in the National Industrial Recovery Act 1933, arguably the cornerstone of the New Deal, held ultra vires the Commerce Clause on the grounds that it regulated interstate commerce only ‘indirectly’).

34 Nebbia v New York 291 US 502 (1934), West Coast Hotel v Parrish 300 US 379 (1937) 397, expressly reversing Adkins (n 30).

35 eg National Labor Relations Board v Jones & Laughlin Steel 301 US 1 (1937) upholding the National Labor Relations Act.

36 Sunstein, C, ‘Lochner's Legacy’ (1987) 87 ColumLRev 873Google Scholar, 874. See also Fried, C, ‘The Supreme Court, 1994 Term’ (1995) 109 HarvLRev 13Google Scholar, 33.

37 Hale v Henkel 201 US 43 (1906), 69–70, United States v White 322 US 694 (1944) and Curcio v United States 354 US 118 (1957) 122.

38 United States v White (n 37) 698–700.

39 Hale v Henkel (n 37) 70.

40 See (n 15).

41 Helmholz, RH et al. (eds), The Privilege against Self-Incrimination: Its Origins and Development (University of Chicago Press 1997)Google Scholar.

42 ibid 17ff (RH Helmholz), 100 (J Langbein) and 185–6 (A Alshuler).

43 ibid 21ff.

44 O'Neill, A, Constitutional Rights of Companies (Legal Books 2007)Google Scholar 95 (this book focuses primarily on Irish constitutional law).

45 See the text accompanying (n 28).

46 488 US 469 (1989).

47 For present purposes, the fact that the case concerned affirmative action is not relevant.

48 Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc. v City of Denver 36 F 3d 1513 (10th Circuit, 1994) 1515. However, the courts will then employ a less stringent standard of scrutiny than for racial discrimination, in line with Craig v Boren 429 US 190 (1976).

49 424 US 1 (1976).

50 Buckley v Valeo [39]. This proposition has by no means gone unchallenged: eg Hellman, D, ‘Money Talks but It Isn't Speech’ (2011) 95 MinnLRev 953Google Scholar and Wright, S, ‘Politics and the Constitution: Is Money Speech?’ (1976) 85 YaleLJ 1001Google Scholar.

51 [49]–[50].

52 Pronouncing this assertion ‘demonstrably incorrect’, David Strauss states: ‘We do not think of ‘‘one person, one vote’’ as an example of reducing the speech of some to enhance the relative speech of others’ (‘Corruption, Equality and Campaign Finance’ (1994) 94 ColumLRev 1369Google Scholar, 1383); and Elena Kagan has described it as ‘one of the most castigated passages in modern First Amendment case law’ (‘Private Speech, Public Purpose: the Role of Governmental Motive as First Amendment Doctrine’ (1996) 63 UChicLRev 415Google Scholar, 464).

53 Sunstein (n 36) 883–4.

54 Buckley (n 50) [20]ff.

55 (n 19)

56 [790].

57 [804].

58 558 US __ (2010), reversing Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce 494 US 652 (1990) and partially reversing McConnell v Federal Election Commission 540 US 93 (2003).

59 Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 2002.

60 [20].

61 [25].

62 [38].

63 eg [26], [30], [34]–[35] and [48]–[49]. See also Roberts CJ concurring at [9] and Scalia J concurring. The latter described corporations as associations of individuals ([7]), thereby denying the fact that corporations are separate legal persons.

64 Saval, S, ‘Corporations United: Reassessing Citizens United v Federal Election Commission to Propose that Political Speech Regulations of For-Profit Corporations Should Be Given the Same Reduced Judicial Scrutiny as Commercial Speech Regulations’ (2011) 41 StetsonLRev 175Google Scholar, 195.

65 [75]. As pointed out there, in state elections even American ‘out of State’ companies are equivalent to foreign companies.

66 [2].

67 [2].

68 Amongst the critics of this ruling was President Obama himself in his State of the Union speech of 27 January 2010 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address>. He focused particularly on the fact that foreign companies would benefit. On this point, see also Hasen, R, ‘Citizens United and the Illusion of Coherence’ (2011) 109 MichLRev 581Google Scholar, 605ff.

69 That is largely because of the Court's general tolerance of restrictions on ‘contributions’. However, in McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission 572 US __ (2014), a statutory provision limiting ‘contributions’ was held contrary to the First Amendment. See generally Issacharoff, S, ‘On Political Corruption’ (2010) 124 HarvLRev 118Google Scholar; Levitt, J, ‘Confronting the Impact of Citizens United’ (2010) 29 YaleL&Pol'yRev 217Google Scholar, 220ff; and Winik, D, ‘Citizens Informed: Broader Disclosure and Disclaimer for Corporate Electoral Advocacy in the Wake of Citizens United’ (2010) 120 YaleLJ 622Google Scholar.

70 Randall v Sorrell 548 US 230 (2006) and Davis v Federal Election Commission 554 US 724 (2008).

71 See, or preferably listen to, this report from National Public Radio entitled ‘Take the Money and Run for Office’ (30 March 2012) <http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/transcript>.

72 ibid. This problem had been drawn to the attention of the Supreme Court in Randall v Sorrell (n 70), but this argument was dismissed at [245]–[246] on the grounds that it would not have influenced the Court in Buckley (n 49).

73 Editorial Board, ‘Ambassadorships are President Obama's Political Plums’ Washington Post (Washington DC, 13 February 2014) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ambassadorships-are-president-obamas-political-plums/2014/02/13/c605a892-9349-11e3-83b9-1f024193bb84_story.html>. The recent appointment of a soap opera producer to be ambassador to Hungary despite her obvious lack of qualifications for the post has aroused particular controversy: A Saenz, ‘Soap Opera Producer Is Now an Ambassador and John McCain Isn't Happy’ ABC News (New York, 2 December 2014) <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/soap-opera-producer-now-ambassador-john-mccain-happy/story?id=27307275>; T Lifson, ‘Disgraceful choices for ambassadors to Hungary and Argentina confirmed by Senate’ American Thinker (California, 3 December 2014) <http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/12/disgraceful_choices_for_ambassadors_to_hungary_and_argentina_confirmed_by_senate.html>.

74 The term ‘church’ will be used here to refer to religious bodies of all faiths.

75 Thus in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc v City of Hialeah 508 US 520 (1993) a church successfully challenged a local ordinance prohibiting ritual animal sacrifice. In Hossana-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 565 US __ (2012), the Free Exercise Clause was even held to shield churches from legislation prohibiting discrimination against the handicapped.

76 374 US 398 (1963).

77 406 US 205 (1972).

78 494 US 872 (1990).

79 United States v Lee 455 US 252, 260 (1982).

80 Justice Alito for the majority in Hobby Lobby at [47].

81 United States v Lee (n 79).

82 [878].

83 Gonzales v O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal 546 US 418 (2006) appears to be the only Supreme Court judgment giving a substantive interpretation of the RFRA prior to Hobby Lobby. It was held there that the RFRA allowed a Christian Spiritist sect to obtain an exemption from a federal law which prevented its members from receiving communion in the form of a sacramental tea.

84 That Act was challenged on other grounds with partial success in National Federation of Independent Business et al. v Sebelius 567 US—(2012). Those proceedings have no bearing on the issues considered here.

85 The case was joined with Conestoga Wood Specialities Corp. et al. v Burwell. Since the facts of that case are the same for all material purposes, it does not require separate consideration.

86 42 US Code section 2000e (see Justice Ginsburg's opinion at [16]–[17]). Also, there is a constitutional right to contraception (Griswold v Connecticut 381 US 479 (1965)) and, under certain conditions, to abortion (Roe v Wade 410 US 113 (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey 505 US 833 (1991)).

87 1 US Code section 1 (2012 edn).

88 This definition bears a striking similarity to the provision of the Interpretation Act 1978 (UK) which defines ‘person’ to include ‘a body of persons corporate or unincorporate’ unless the contrary intention appears.

89 Justice Alito's judgment at [2].

90 Justice Alito at [18].

91 Justice Alito at [22]ff.

92 Justice Ginsburg at [16]–[18]. Similarly, Tushnet (n 20) 76; contrast Willis (n 20).

93 Justice Alito at [29].

94 At [19]–[20]ff.

95 Justice Alito at [41]. This is compounded by the majority's assurance that there would be no difficulty in ascertaining whether a company's religious objection is sincere (Justice Alito at [29]).

96 Contrast Justice Ginsburg at [32].

97 Justice Alito at [31]ff. On this part of the case, Justice Kennedy delivered a concurring judgment. under the RFRA.

98 Justice Alito at [49].

99 Especially at [33]–[34].

100 At [2].

101 A profusion of articles appeared even before the judgment was delivered. Those advocating the approach subsequently taken by the majority include Willis (n 20); contrast CM Corbin, ‘Corporate Religious Liberty: Why Corporations Are Not Entitled to Religious Exemptions’ American Constitution Society for Law and Policy Issue Brief, January 2014 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2384136>. Tushnet (n 20) tentatively endorsed the latter position.

102 See Final Report to the CDDH, ‘Fifth Negotiation Meeting between the CDDH Ad Hoc Negotiation Group and the European Commission on the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights’ (Strasbourg, 10 June 2013) at < http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/hrpolicy/Accession/Meeting_reports/47_1(2013)008rev2_EN.pdf>. This Agreement provides for the Union to accede to Protocols 1 and 6 to the ECHR, since all Member States are party to them, but not to the other substantive Protocols.

103 Opinion 2/13 [2015] OJ C64/2.

104 eg Cases C-274/99P Connolly v Commission [2001] ECR I-1611, para 37 and C-415/05P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-6351, para 283. The Court first referred to the ECHR in Case 4/73 Nold v Commission [1974] ECR 491.

105 ‘The Charter’. The Charter was first promulgated in 2000 ([2000] OJ C364/1). The current version is published in [2007] OJ C303/1 and again in [2012] OJ C326/391.

106 Preamble to, and Article 1 of, the Treaty on European Union [2008] C115/13.

107 Case 26/62 van Gend en Loos v Netherlands [1962] ECR 3, 12.

108 See Bratza, N, ‘The Implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 for Commercial Practice’ [2000] EHRLR 1Google Scholar; De Schutter, O, ‘L'accès des personnes morales à la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme’ in Helmons, SM, Mélanges offerts à Silvio Marcus Helmons (Bruylant 2003)Google Scholar 83; Emberland, M, The Human Rights of Companies: Exploring the Structure of ECHR Protection (OUP 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fura-Sandström, E, ‘Business and Human Rights – Who Cares?’ in Wildhaber, L, Liber Amicorum Luzius Wildhaber: Human Rights – Strasbourg Views (Engel 2007)Google Scholar 159.

109 Emphasis added.

110 Emphasis added.

111 App No 6538/74, (1979–80) 2 EHRR 245 (‘thalidomide’). See also Autronic AG v Switzerland App No 12726/87, (1990) 12 EHRR 485, para 47.

112 (n 22).

113 eg art 6(1) ECHR on the right to a fair trial: Terra Woningen v Netherlands, App No 20641/92 (1996) 24 EHRR 456, Comingersoll v Portugal, App No 35382/97 (2001) 31 EHRR 31 Capital Bank v Bulgaria, App No 49429/99 (2007) 44 EHRR 48. The applicant in that case was a natural person.

114 App No 6289/73 (1980) 2 EHRR 305, para 26.

115 App No 13710/88 (1993) 16 EHRR 97.

116 para 31.

117 App No 37971/97 (2004) 39 EHRR 17, confirmed in Bernh Larsen Holding v Norway, App No 24117/08 (2014) 58 EHRR 8, para 104.

118 para 40.

119 para 49.

120 Hertel v Switzerland, App No 25181/94 (1998) 28 EHRR 534, para 47; Verein gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland, 24699/94, (2002) 34 EHRR 4, para 66; Steel and Morris v United Kingdom, 68461/01, (2005) 41 EHRR 403, para 88.

121 (n 3).

122 Watson, P, EU Social and Employment Law (2nd edn, OUP 2014)Google Scholar ch 3.

123 Case 11/70 [1970] ECR 1125.

124 para 4.

125 (n 104).

126 [2000] OJ C364/11; see Jacqué, JP, ‘The Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’ in Peers, S et al. (eds), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary (Hart 2014)Google Scholar 1715.

127 (n 106).

128 [2007] OJ C303/17

129 Cases C-356/12 Glatzel [2014] OJ C253/5, paras 74ff and C-176/12 Association de Médiation Sociale [2014] OJ C184/5 respectively.

130 See Vice-President Lenaerts ‘Exploring the Limits of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (2012) 8 EuConst 375, 399–400.

131 However, the Court has been known to refer to the free movement of goods as a fundamental right: Case C-228/98 Dounias [2000] ECR I-577, para 64, and the free movement of natural persons has unsurprisingly been graced with that description more frequently: Case 152/82 Forcheri v Belgium [1983] ECR 2323, para 11; see also Case 222/86 UNCTEF v Heylens [1987] ECR 4097, para 14, and AG Lenz in Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 203. See Oliver, P and Roth, WH, ‘The Internal Market and the Four Freedoms’ (2004) 41 CMLRev 407Google Scholar and Oliver, P et al. , Free Movement of Goods in the European Union (5th edn, Hart 2010) 11–13Google Scholar.

132 Case C-438/05 [2007] ECR I-10779.

133 Case C-341/05 [2007] ECR I-11767.

134 As to the meaning of this phrase, see Case C-617/10 Åkerberg Fransson (European Court of Justice, judgment of 26 February 2013).

135 Case C-279/09 [2010] ECR I-13849, noted by Oliver, P in (2011) 48 CMLRev 2023Google Scholar.

136 In VP Diffusion Sarl v France, App No 14565/04 (ECthR, decision of 26 August 2008), the ECtHR had upheld a national measure providing for legal laid to non-profit entities but not to companies. After the ruling in DEB, the ECtHR delivered a judgment which may rule out the possibility of companies enjoying such a right: Granos Organicos Nacionales v Germany, App No 19508/07 (ECtHR, judgment of 22 March 2012).

137 Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany as amended to 11 July 2012 <http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/basic_law_for_the_federal_republic_of_germany.pdf>; see Part V below.

138 Indeed, the rights under arts 43 and 44 are not even (fully) enforceable: Cases T-103/99 Associazione delle cantine sociali venete v European Ombudsman and European Parliament [2000] ECR II-4165 and C-261/13P Schönberger v European Parliament [2015] OJ C46/8 respectively.

139 Catherine Dupré, Commentary on Article 1 in ‘The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary’ (n 127) para 1.28.

140 (n 128).

141 Cases C-275/06 ProMusicae v Telefónica de España [2008] ECR I-271, paras 61ff and C-70/10 Scarlet Extended [2011] ECR I-11959.

142 Cases C-70/10 Scarlet Extended [2011] ECR 11959 and C-426/11 Alemo-Herron [2013] OJ C260/6.

143 ProMusicae (n 141).

144 Case T-474/04 Pergan v Commission, [2007] ECR II-4225, para 75.

145 Case C-550/07 P Akzo v Commission [2010] ECR I-8301, para 92.

146 Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09 [2010] ECR I-11063, paras 45–53.

147 (n 135).

148 See the Explanations to art 48.

149 Clearly, the Court of Justice had in mind the decision of the ECtHR in VP Diffusion (n 136).

150 (n 19).

151 Case C-301/04 P [2006] ECR I-5915, para 63.

152 See eg the AG's Opinion in Case C-17/10 Toshiba [2012] OJ C98/3, discussed in Part IVF below.

153 See Oliver, P, ‘What Purpose Does Article 16 of the Charter Serve?’ in Bernitz, U, Groussot, X and Schulyok, F (eds), General Principles of EU Law and European Private Law (Wolters Kluwer 2013)Google Scholar 281; and Schmidt, F, Die unternehmerische Freiheit im Unionsrecht (Duncker & Humblot 2010)Google Scholar.

154 However, the ECtHR has held that an existing professional practice or business constitutes ‘possessions’ within the meaning of art 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR: van Marle v Netherlands App Nos 8543/79, 8674/79, 8675/79 and 8685/79 (1986) 8 EHRR 483; Wendenburg v Germany, App No 71630/01 (2003) 36 EHRR CD 154; this includes goodwill (Wendenburg). But this principle does not extend to future earnings (Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v United Kingdom, App No 37683/97 [2000] ECHR 700, as art 1 does not confer the right to acquire property.

155 eg arts 12(1) of Germany's Basic Law and 45(3) and 41 of the Irish and Italian Constitutions respectively.

156 (n 104).

157 eg Nold (ibid), Cases 265/87 Schräder [1989] ECR 2237, para 15, C-177/90 Kühn [1992] ECR I-35, para 16, C-280/93 Germany v Council (bananas) [1994] ECR I-497, C-283/11 Sky Österreich (European Court of Justice, judgment of 22 January 2013) and Case C-12/11 Ryanair [2013] OJ C86/2.

158 (n 142).

159 (n 142).

160 [2001] OJ L82/16.

161 Case C-41/90 Höfner and Elser [1991] ECR I-1979, para 21.

162 The rationale for the privilege against self-incrimination would suggest that it applies in full where the undertaking consists of one or more natural persons: Wils, W, ‘Self-Incrimination in EC Antitrust Enforcement: A Legal and Economic Analysis’ (2003) 26 World Competition 567Google Scholar, 577.

163 See by analogy Menarini v Italy, App No 43509/08 (ECtHR, judgment of 27 September 2011) paras 57ff. The privilege does not apply at all in civil competition proceedings: Case C-60/92 Otto [1993] ECR I-5683, paras 15–17.

164 Funke v France, App No 10828/84 (1993) 16 EHRR 297, John Murray v United Kingdom, App No 18731/91 (1996) 22 EHRR 29, Saunders v United Kingdom, App No 19187/91 (1996) 23 EHRR 313, Heaney and McGuiness v Ireland, App No 34720/97 (2001) 33 EHRR 264 and J.B. v Switzerland, App No 31827/96 (2001) ECHR 2001-III 435.

165 Saunders (n 164).

166 ibid para 68.

167 ibid para 71.

168 Funke (n 164) para 44; J.B. (n 164) paras 63ff.

169 Saunders (n 164) para 69. At least in part, these matters fall within art 8 ECHR in any event.

170 Case 374/87 [1989] ECR 3283

171 para 30.

172 para 29.

173 In the US, subpoenas requiring the production of pre-existing documents are compatible with the Fourth Amendment (see n 24); and the Fifth Amendment does not come into play at all as regards corporations.

174 paras 34ff.

175 paras 34ff. See Khan, N in Kerse, C and Khan, N, EU Antitrust Procedure (6th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012)Google Scholar para 3.033; Scordamaglia-Tousis, A, EU Cartel Enforcement: Reconciling Effective Enforcement with Fundamental Rights (Wolters Kluwer 2013)Google Scholar 164ff; and Wils (n 162).

176 eg Cases T-112/98 Mannesmannröhren-Werke [2001] ECR II-729 and T-34/93 Société Générale [1995] ECR II-545.

177 Case C-238/99 P Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij et al. [2001] ECR I-8375, paras 273–275.

178 (n 151).

179 (n 37).

180 para 67.

181 paras 33ff.

182 AG Bot has even described it as contradictory in some respects: para 462 of his Opinion in Case C-125/07 P Erste Bank [2009] ECR I-8681.

183 Wils (n 162) and Wils, ‘EU Anti-Trust Enforcement Powers and Procedural Rights and Guarantees: The Interplay between EU Law, National Law, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the European Convention On Human Rights’ (2011) 34 World Competition 189Google Scholar, 206.

184 Bombois, T, La protection des droits fondamentaux des entreprises en droit européen répressif de la concurrence (Larcier 2012)Google Scholar 171ff; Idot, L, Droit communautaire de la concurrence. Le nouveau système communautaire de mise en œuvre des articles 81 et 82 CE (Bruylant 2004)Google Scholar 96.

185 Case C-126/97 Eco Swiss China Time v Benetton International NV [1999] ECR I-3055, para 36; see also Protocol 27 to the Lisbon Treaty on the Internal Market and Competition.

186 eg Zolotukhin v Russia, App No 14939/03, (2009) 54 EHRR 503.

187 See W Devroe, ‘How General Should General Principles Be? Ne Bis in Idem in EU Competition Law’ in Bernitz, Groussot and Schulyok (n 154); G Gaulard, ‘Le Principe Non Bis in Idem en Droit de la Concurrence de l'Union’ [2013] Cahiers de Droit Européen 703; Khan (n 175) 497–501; Oliver, P and Bombois, T, ‘Ne bis in idem en droit européen : un principe à plusieurs variantes’ [2012] Journal de Droit européen 266Google Scholar; and J Tomkin, Part I: ‘Article 50’ in ‘The Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary’ (n 126).

188 More precisely art 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement ([2000] OJ L239/19). The Schengen Agreement applies to most of the Member States of the EU (other than the UK and Ireland), as well as certain other European countries such as Norway.

189 Case C-187/01 [2003] ECR I-1345.

190 (n 152).

191 para 117 of the Opinion.

192 (n 151).

193 Neither this provision nor any of the other provisions discussed here defines ‘race’ or ‘ethnic origin’, and the difference between the two terms is not clear. For ease of reference, ‘race’ will be used here to cover both concepts.

194 Council Directive 2004/113 [2004] OJ L373/37.

195 Council Directive 2000/43 [2000] OJ L180/22.

196 See art 6 of Directive 2004/113 (n 195) and the second paragraph of art 23 of the Charter; and art 5 of Directive 2000/43 (n 196). See also the general public interest exception in art 52(1) of the Charter.

197 Art 3 of Directive 2014/23 on the award of concessions [2014] OJ L94/1, art 18 of Directive 2014/24 on public procurement [2014] OJ L94/65 and art 36 of Directive 2014/25 on public procurement in utilities ([2014] OJ L94/243.

198 Proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrelevant of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation COM (2008) 426.

199 Directive 2014/24 (n 197).

200 (n 46). For present purposes, it is irrelevant that in that case the US Supreme Court struck down the affirmative action in issue, whereas EU law expressly provides for it (see n 196).

201 App No 24839/94, (1998) 26 EHRR 1.

202 para 47.

203 Also, Recommendation 1516 (2001) on the Financing of Political Parties of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, point 8.A.v advocates ceilings on political donations and ‘strict limitations on donations from legal entities’. See <http://www.assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta01/EREC1516.htm >.

204 Decision 76/787 ([1976] OJ L278/1) amended by Decision 2002/772 ([2002] OJ L283/1).

205 [2003] OJ L297/1.

206 Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia v Moldova App No 45701/99, (2002) 35 EHRR 13 and Magyar Kersztény Mennonita Egyház et al v Hungary, App Nos 70945/11 et al. (ECtHR, judgment of 8 April 2014). On the autonomous rights of churches, see Fernández Martínez v Spain, App No 56030/07 (2015) 60 EHRR 3, paras 127ff.

207 Verein ‘Kontakt-Information-Therapie’ and Hagen v Austria, App No 11921/86 (1988) 57 DR 81, para 1.

208 Needless to say, such a situation would be unthinkable in the United States, where both the federal authorities and the states are precluded from making any law ‘respecting an establishment of religion’; see the opening paragraph of Part IIIE above.

209 Company X v Switzerland, App No 7865/77 (1979) 16 DR 85 and Kustannus oy vapaa ajattelija AB v Finland, App No 20471/92 (1996) 85-A DR 29.

210 BVerfGE 19, 206 (1965). As one would expect, just like the US Supreme Court (n 79), the ECtHR has stated that religious objections cannot validly be raised to taxation on the grounds that the proceeds will be used for purposes contrary to the taxpayer's religious beliefs (Bayatyan v Armenia, App No 23459/03 (2012) 54 EHRR 15, para 111). The same would of course apply if a company were to object to general taxation on the grounds of its beliefs (or lack of them). But general taxation is different for the reason given by the majority in Hobby Lobby (see the text accompanying n 80).

211 (n 209).

212 See the Explanations on art 10 (n 128).

213 But see arts 13 TFEU and 4(4) of Council Regulation 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing ([2009] OJ L303/1), providing for a waiver of the requirement to stun animals prior to slaughter, where that is necessary to comply with religious rites.

214 [2000] OJ L303/16; see Ellis, E and Watson, P, EU Anti-Discrimination Law (2nd edn, OUP 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar 35 and Watson, P ‘Equality between Europe's Citizens: Where Does the Union Now Stand?’ (2012) 35 FordhamIntlLJ 1426Google Scholar, 1462ff.

215 Available at <http://verfassungen.de/de/de06-66/verfassung48-i.htm>.

216 Today the right to petition Parliament is a fundamental right in German law: it is now enshrined in art 17 of the Basic Law, which appears in the section relating to fundamental rights.

217 B Remmert, commentary on art 19(3) in T Maunz and G Dürig, Grundgesetz Kommentar (Beck Online 2013) paras 3 and 100.

218 Available at <http://www.verfassungen.de/de/by/bayern19.htm>.

219 (n 137).

220 This provision has served as something of a model for subsequent constitutions (eg arts 12(2) of the Portuguese Constitution and art 8(4) of the South African Constitution). On its face, it applies only to ‘domestic’ legal corporations, which would be at variance with the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of nationality in art 18 TFEU, as regards companies or firms from other EU Member States which meet the requirements of art 54 TFEU: Cases C-398/92 Mund & Fester v Hatrex [1994] ECR I-467 and C-43/95 Data Delecta and Forsberg v MSL Dynamics Ltd. [1996] ECR I-4661. However, the Constitutional Court has now interpreted art 19(3) broadly so as to encompass these entities: 1 BvR 1916/09 (Order of 19 July 2011) at <http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2011/07/rs20110719_1bvr191609en.html>. See T Ackermann ‘Grundrechte juristischer Personen im kartellrechtlichen Sanktionsverfahren: Ein Reformhindernis’ 1/2015 Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht 17, 18.

221 Remmert (n 217) para 27.

222 BVerfGE 75, 196; see Jarass, H, commentary on art 19 GG in Jarass and Pieroth, Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (12th edn, Beck 2012)Google Scholar paras 18 and 25;

Krebs, W, commentary on art 19 in von Münch, I and Kunig, P (eds), Grundgesetz Kommentar (6th edn, Beck 2012)Google Scholar 47 and Remmert (n 218) paras 65–75.

223 BVerfG 95, 220 (1997) at 242, BVerfG 118, 168 (2007) at 203.

224 BVerfGE 95, 220 (1997) at 83–84.

225 BVerfGE 106, 28 (2002) at 39.

226 BVerfGE 19, 206 (1965).

227 (n 209).

228 BVerfGE 20, 162 (1966) at 171 (the press), BVerfGE 95, 220 (1997) at 234 (radio).

229 BVerfGE 100, 313 (1999) at 356, BVerfGE 106, 28 (2002) at 43.

230 BVerfGE 21, 261 (1967) at 266, BVerfGE 118, 168 (2007) at 202 and 205.

231 BVerfGE 4, 7 (1954) at 17.

232 Grimm, D, ‘Human Rights and Judicial Review in Germany’ in Beatty, DM (ed), Human Rights and Judicial Review: A Comparative Perspective (Brill 1994)Google Scholar 290, citing BVerfGE 4, 7 (1954) at 17ff, BVerfGE 7, 377 at 400 and BVerfGE 50, 290 (1979) at 339ff. See generally Kommers, D and Miller, R, The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany (3rd edn, Duke University Press 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ch 10.

233 BVerfGE 80, 244 (1989) at 250, BVerfGE 18, 441 (1965) at 447, BVerfGE 75, 192 (1987) at 200. As these cases show, these rights apply equally to all natural and legal persons regardless of their nationality. The rights enshrined in arts 101 and 103 are assimilated to fundamental rights, although those provisions are not contained in Part I of the Grundgesetz which is devoted to fundamental rights.

234 BVerfGE 80, 244 (1989) at 253, BVerfGE 84, 372 (1991); Remmert (n 217) paras 104–111.

235 O'Neill (n 44) 53–4.

236 (n 152).

237 See the text accompanying nn 22 and 112.

238 Bellotti (n 19).