The European Union was created to promote and harmonize democratic systems and human rights across the European continent. In response to the devastating consequences of the Second World War in 1945, the Council of Europe drew up the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter EDH Convention), signed in Rome on November 4, 1950, which contains a list of fundamental rights that are effectively guaranteed by the EDH Convention.
In this sense, the aim of the ECHR was to guarantee the human rights set out in the Convention, so that citizens and vulnerable persons who have suffered a violation can invoke them before a court.
However, it is interesting to note one particular feature of this convention. In Article 1, the EDH Convention states:
“ARTICLE 1. Obligation to respect human rights
The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.”[1]
Its wording leaves some doubt as to whether legal entities, such as companies, can benefit from these protections.
This may seem like a technical question, but it raises some simple issues:
- Can a company be a victim of abuse of power?
- Can it be subjected to disproportionate measures that jeopardize its very existence?
- Can it, in other words, be “vulnerable” to a state?
These issues have been progressively resolved by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The judgments in Société Colas Est et autres v. France (2002) [2] and OAO Yukos v. Russia (2012) [3] were the cornerstones of this development.
At the same time, the European Union has developed an ambitious due diligence policy, requiring companies to identify, prevent and remedy human rights abuses in their operations and supply chains.
This is a two-way phenomenon:
-> Companies must respect human rights (responsibility and obligation).
-> Companies must be able to invoke human rights when they themselves are faced with abuses.
-
Progressive recognition of the fundamental rights of companies
1.1 Why should companies benefit from human rights?
The original aim of the European Convention on Human Rights was to protect the dignity, integrity and freedom of human beings. But a company is not an abstraction:
- it’s made up of employees,
- it owns premises,
- it owns property,
- it can be sanctioned, controlled and searched,
- and may even disappear as a result of certain public decisions.
In other words, the company is a dynamic entity within the socio-economic landscape, and defending its rights is often the only way to indirectly protect the individuals who depend on it.
1.2 The turning point in Colas Est v. France (2002)
The case concerned massive inspections and seizures carried out by the French tax authorities at the offices of various companies. These interventions had not been authorized by a judge, but had only been the subject of an administrative decision.
The ECHR concluded that the searches were disproportionate, recognizing that company premises are protected by the right to respect for private life (article 8 of the ECHR) [4].
This decision may come as a surprise, since an office is not a home. However, the ECHR considers that professional spaces also constitute a personal sphere which must be protected from abuse.
This is a crucial recognition: it is now accepted that a company can fall victim to arbitrary intrusion, and that it must be able to protect itself against it.
The Colas Est ruling is therefore seminal, as it puts an end to the idea that only individuals can invoke fundamental rights.
-
Corporate abuse of power: the emblematic Yukos case (2012)
If the Colas Est judgment represents the first step, the Yukos case brings a new perspective on the company: that of an entity likely to be vulnerable to a state.
2.1. Background to the Yukos case
Yukos was one of Russia’s largest oil companies. It faced a series of colossal tax reassessments, accelerated legal proceedings, the practical impossibility of defending itself adequately, massive seizures and, finally, outright dissolution[5].
The ECHR found that several fundamental rights had been violated, including :
- the right to a fair trial (article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights)[6];
- the right to protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol 1)[7];
- the right not to be subjected to disproportionate measures (Article 1 of Protocol 1)[8].
2.2. Recognizing a company’s “vulnerability
What makes this ruling decisive is that the ECHR recognizes that even a powerful company can be vulnerable when faced with the abusive exercise of public power.
This key concept highlights the human side of corporate life. It shows that :
- the company may find itself in a bind;
- it can be subject to political pressure;
- it may be deprived of effective remedies;
In this way, the company is no longer simply an economic player, but becomes a subject of law requiring protection against a state that oversteps its powers.
-
From protected subject to responsible player: due diligence
Today, the European Union is considerably increasing the responsibility of companies with regard to human rights. This responsibility is part of a global context. Companies operate through complex supply chains, where a variety of problems can arise, including :
- forced labor;
- child labor ;
- major pollution ;
- environmental damage ;
- corruption;
- discrimination.
The European Directive on the Duty of Vigilance (CSDD) represents a major turning point. It requires companies to :
- identify the dangers of human rights and environmental violations;
- implement tangible measures to prevent them;
- monitor their supply chains;
- set up reporting and monitoring mechanisms ;
- repair or compensate for the damage caused.
The aim is twofold: firstly, to encourage companies to adopt a proactive approach, and secondly, to strengthen public confidence in business practices.
-
Apparent tension but profound coherence
It may seem paradoxical that a company can both be held responsible for human rights violations and invoke human rights to protect itself.
In reality, these two dimensions are not opposites: they complement each other.
4.1. A company liable when it causes damage
Due diligence responds to a simple observation: in a globalized world, a company can have a considerable impact on communities and workers, sometimes thousands of kilometers away.
4.2. A company protected from abuse
The Colas Est and Yukos cases show that companies may need some protection against :
- overly intrusive administrations;
- unfair procedures;
- abusive confiscations;
- hidden political decisions.
4.3. A coherent logic
The whole thing is based on the same idea:
In the European legal order, any entity – individual or collective – has the right to act without suffering abuse, and can be held liable in the event of damage caused[9].
You might think that a large company couldn’t possibly be vulnerable. But vulnerability doesn’t depend on size: it depends on power relationships.
Even a successful business can be powerless against :
- poorly conducted tax or criminal proceedings,
- an unfounded seizure,
- arbitrary administrative closure,
- regulations used as an instrument of sanction.
The ECHR now recognizes this reality, which is crucial on three fronts.
For employees A company unfairly targeted can disappear, leading to massive job losses.
For investors A random system makes the economy unpredictable.
For the rule of law For the rule of law: corporate protection limits the abuse of power.
Conclusion: towards an integrated, balanced vision of the company in Europe
The recent history of European law shows a significant evolution: the company is an essential player in society.
It must respect human rights, but it must also be able to take advantage of them; it can be both responsible and vulnerable.
The Colas Est and Yukos judgments clarified this position, emphasizing that companies are not merely economic structures, but entities rooted in society and liable to be victims of fundamental violations.
Due diligence, for its part, strengthens corporate responsibility, while reinforcing the logic of protection. Together, these two dynamics outline a modern vision: a European economy that is respectful of rights, balanced and based on justice.
[1] European Convention on Human Rights, as amended by Protocols 11, 14 and 15, supplemented by the Additional Protocol and Protocols 4, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 16, Council of Europe.
[2] SOCIÉTÉ COLAS EST ET AUTRES v. France, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-64986, European Court of Human Rights
[3] CASE OF OAO NEFTYANAYA KOMPANIYA YUKOS v. Russia, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-106308, European Court of Human Rights
[4] SOCIÉTÉ COLAS EST ET AUTRES v. France, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-64986, European Court of Human Rights
[5] CASE OF OAO NEFTYANAYA KOMPANIYA YUKOS v. Russia, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-106308, European Court of Human Rights
[6] Ibid, para. 551
[7] Ibid, paras 573-74
[8] Ibid, para. 657
[9] van den Muijsenbergh, Winfried H. A. M., and Sam Rezai. “Corporations and the European Convention on Human Rights.” Pacific McGeorge Global Business & Development Law Journal , vol. 25, no. 1, 2012, pp. 43-68.
