Apartheid Entschädigungsklagen (bez. Südafrika)

Black man drinking next to sign |"coloured"

For the English version of this case profile, click here.

Im Jahr 2002 hat eine Gruppe von Südafrikanern, vertreten durch die Khulumani Support Group, zwanzig Banken und Unternehmen, die während der Apartheid Geschäfte in Südafrika betrieben haben, in einem sog. "federal court" in den USA verklagt. Die Kläger werfen den angeklagten Unternehmen vor, dass ihre Beteiligung in Schlüsselindustrien in der Apartheid-Ära die Verbechen gegen damals als "schwarze Afrikaner" klassifizierte Personen zusätzlich angespornt und vorangetrieben hätte. Die Kläger sind Opfer von Menschenrechtsverletzungen wie außergerichtlicher Tötungen, Folter und Vergewaltigung gewesen, und sie behaupten, dass die Aktivitäten der Angeklagten in Südafrika während der Apartheid-Ära diese an den Verbrechen mitschuldig gemacht hätten.

Die südafrikansiche Regierung stellte sich zu Beginn gegen das Gerichtsverfahren, und reichte die entsprechenden Stellungnahmen in den involvierten US-amerikanischen Gerichtshöfen ein, in welchen es öffentlich seine ablehnende Haltung gegenüber des Verfahrens offenlegte. Ein Richter des Bezirksgerichts lies die Klage im November 2004 auf Antrag der Angeklagten fallen, die Kläger gingen im August 2005 in Berufung.Im Oktober 2007 hob das Berufungsgericht das Urteil des niedriger gestellten Bezirksgericht auf und gab den Fall an das Bezirksgericht für weitere Schritte zurück. Daraufhin riefen im Januar 2008 die angeklagten Unternehmen den US Supreme Court für certiorari an, mit der Anfrage, das Urteil vom Oktober 2007 des US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Berufungsgericht) aufzuheben. Im Mai 2008 verkündete der US Supreme Court dass es nicht in diesem Fall intervenieren könne, da die dafür benötigte Anzahl an Richter nicht erreicht werden konnte, weil vier der neun Richter den Fall wegen Befangenheit abgelehnt hatten. So sah sich der Supreme Court gezwungen, die Entscheidung des Berufungsgericht aufrechtzuerhalten und das Verfahren fortschreiten zu lassen. Am 8. April 2009 veröffentlichte das Bezirksgericht ein Urteil - die Richter grenzten die Forderungen der Kläger ein aber liesen das Verfahren gegen Daimler, Ford, General Motors, IBM und Rheinmetall fortfahren.

Im September 2009 verkündete die südafrikanische Regierung ihre Unterstützung des Verfahrens, und zog seine vorherige Position zurück. Der südafrikanische Justizminister schickte einen Brief an die Richterin des Bezirksgerichts, in welchem er diese informierte, dass die südafrikanische Regierung der Ansicht ist, dass das Gericht das angemessene Forum bietet, um über diesen Fall zu entscheiden. Im August 2013 gab das Berufungsgericht den Fall an den niedrigeren Gerichtshof zurück und empfahl, die Anklage fallen zulassen, wobei es auf das Urteil des US Supreme Courts zur extraterritorialen Reichweite des Alien Tort Claims Act in Kiobel v. Shell verwies. Am 26. Dezember 2013 lies der niedrigere Gerichtshof die Klage gegen Daimler und Rheinmetall fallen, aber setzte das Verfahren gegen IBM und Ford fort. Im April 2014 urteilte der Gerichtshof, dass die Kläger ihre Anklageschrift mit konkreten Beweisen gegen Ford und IBM erweitern können um zu beweisen, dass die Aktivitäten der Unternehmen die USA signifikant betreffen ("touch and concern"-Standard nach Kiobel v. Shell). Am 29. August 2014 lies die Richterin des Bezirksgerichts die Klage gegen IBM und Ford fallen, da die Kläger den signifikanten Zusammenhang zwischen den Vorwürfen der Verbrechen in Südafrika und der Abhaltung des Gerichtsverfahrens in den USA nicht ausreichend erbringen konnten.

Am 27. Februar 2012 einigten sich die Kläger mit General Motors in einem Vergleich zu Entschädigungszahlungen.

Am 20. Juni 2016 lehnte der US Supreme Court die Berufung der Kläger ab. Der Supreme Court stellte fest dass die Verbindung zwischen den Handlungen von IBM und Ford in den USA zu den Menschenrechtsverstößen in Südafrika in der Vergangenheit nicht bestand. 

Dokumente in deutscher Sprache:

Der Daimler Konzern und die WM 2010, Koordination Südliches Afrika

Die Folgen der Apartheid , Politik im Spiegel/German Foreign Policy, 25. April 2014

Gericht weist Apartheid-Klagen gegen Daimler und Rheinmetall zurück, FAZ, 13. April 2010

Hintergrundinformationen zur Klage von Apartheidopfern gegen internationale Konzerne, Koordination Südliches Afrika 

- Kampagne "Kick for one World" zur Fussball-WM in Südafrika, Koordination Südliches Afrika

Entschädigungsklage gegen Daimler und Rheinmetall wegen Förderung der Apartheidsverbrechen, European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, 13. August 2013

Daimler, Deutsche Bank und Co.: Das Geschäft mit der Apartheid,Medico International, 31. März 2014

 

Dokumente in englischer Sprache:

- "Apartheid corporate lawsuit dismissed", Reuters, 29. August 2014
- "U.S. judge dismisses apartheid claims against 2 German companies", Nate Raymond, Reuters, 27.Dezember 2013
- "High Court Decision Cited in Rejection of Apartheid Liability", Brendan Pierson, New York Law Journal, 22. August 2013 
- "US General Motors settles apartheid reparations claim", Adrian Ephraim, Mail & Guardian, 29. Februar 2012
- "State supports apartheid-era victims", Christelle Terreblanche, Cape Times [So. Africa], 3. September 2009
- "Judge Narrows Claims in Apartheid Torts Case Against Multinational Companies", Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal, 9. April 2009
- "Court won't block U.S. lawsuit by apartheid victims", Mark Sherman, Associated Press, 12. Mai 2008
- “US court allows apartheid claims to go forward”, Paritosh Bansal, Reuters, 12. Oktober 2007
- “Apartheid Victims Sue Global Corporations”, Alison Raphael, OneWorld US, 13. November 2002

- South African Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development Jeffrey Radebe: [PDF] Letter to Judge Shira Scheindlin regarding In Re South African Apartheid Litigation, 1. September 2009
- South African Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development Dr. P M Maduna: [PDF] Declaration of Minister Maduna to US District Court Judge Spizzo, 11. Juli 2003

- South African Minister of Foreign Affairs Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma: [PDF] Letter to US Secretary of State Colin Powell Re Apartheid Litigation, 16. Mai 2002

 

- Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP (plaintiffs’ co-counsel): case summary (includes links to legal briefs filed in this case)
- Hausfeld LLP (plaintiffs' co-counsel):  Khulumani v. Barclays National Bank Ltd. - Info Center
- Khulumani Support Group (plaintiffs): Khulumani Lawsuit in New York
- Khulumani Support Group: US Circuit Court dismisses apartheid litigation, 22. August 2013

- [PDF] In re South African Apartheid Litigation, US District Court for the Southern District of New York, 29. August 2014 [order dismissing the lawsuit]
- [PDF] In re South African Apartheid Litigation, US District Court for the Southern District of New York, 26. Dezember 2013 [order dismissing Daimler & Rheinmetall from case]
- [PDF] Balintulo v. Daimler AG, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 21. August 2013
- [PDF] American Isuzu Motors, Inc., et al. v. Lungisile Ntsebeza, et al. - Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners, 11. Februar 2008 [brief of in support of dismissal of lawsuit]
- [PDF] American Isuzu Motors Inc. et al. v. Ntsebeza et al. - Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, 10. Januar 2008 [petition filed by the defendant companies at US Supreme Court]
- US District Court for the Southern District of New York: [PDF] In re South African Apartheid Litigation, 8. April 2009
- US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: [PDF] Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank, Ltd., 12. Oktober 2007

 

Get RSS feed of these results

Alle Teile dieser Story

Artikel
+ English - Verbergen

Autor/in: Lawrence Hurley, Reuters

"U.S. top court declines to revive apartheid claims against IBM, Ford", 20 Jun 2016

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by a group of black South Africans seeking to revive human rights litigation aiming to hold Ford Motor Co and IBM Corp liable for allegedly conducting business that helped perpetuate racial apartheid.

The justices left in place a 2015 ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York that favored the two companies. That court decided that the plaintiffs failed to show that there was a close connection between decisions made or actions taken by Ford and IBM in the United States to killings, torture and other human rights abuses that took place in South Africa from the 1970s to early 1990s.

Ford was accused of providing military vehicles for South African security forces and sharing information about anti-apartheid and union activists. IBM was accused of providing technology and training to perpetuate racial separation and the "denationalization" of black South Africans...[Also refers to Daimler, Rheinmetall]

Lesen Sie hier den vollständigen Post

Artikel
+ English - Verbergen

Autor/in: Sarah Altschuller, CSR and the Law by Foley Hoag

Earlier this week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a decision in In re: South African Apartheid Litigation dismissing claims brought pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) against Ford and IBM. Plaintiffs had alleged that the companies aided and abetted tortious conduct by South Africa’s apartheid regime. The Court observed that the “focus” of the necessary inquiry as to whether plaintiffs’ claims properly “touch and concern” the United States is “the nature and location of the conduct constituting the alleged offenses under the law of nations.”

Lesen Sie hier den vollständigen Post

Artikel
+ English - Verbergen

Autor/in: Sophia Cope, Electronic Frontier Foundation

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals dealt a blow to human rights victims when it dismissed Balintulo v. Ford Motor Co. this week. The appellate court…[applied] an unrealistically and unfairly high pleading standard to a case brought by black South Africans against IBM Corp. and Ford Motor Co. for their roles in facilitating apartheid. In February, we filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs’ case against IBM…We believe strongly in innovation and the power of technology to be a force for good…As we said in our amicus brief, “U.S. corporations should not enjoy immunity for their purposeful assistance, technological or otherwise, in gross human rights violations . . . Technology has the capacity to protect human rights, but it also can be customized to make violations ruthlessly efficient.”

Lesen Sie hier den vollständigen Post

Artikel
+ English - Verbergen

Autor/in: Dan McCue, Courthouse News Service

Victims of apartheid in South Africa cannot sue IBM and the Ford Motor Co. in New York because there is no evidence any of the corporations' alleged offenses occurred in the United States, the Second Circuit ruled Monday. The ruling, written by U.S. Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes on behalf of the three-judge panel, cites a 2013 ruling by the Supreme Court that significantly limits the reach of the 1789 Alien Tort Statute…The panel's ruling Monday upheld decision by U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, who threw out the cases last year -- some of them filed as long ago as 2002, against scores of corporations and individuals -- because the conduct complained of occurred overseas.

Lesen Sie hier den vollständigen Post

Artikel
+ English - Verbergen

Autor/in: Jonathan Stempel, Reuters

Victims of apartheid in South Africa cannot pursue lawsuits seeking to hold Ford Motor Co and IBM Corp liable for conducting business that helped perpetuate the practice decades ago…The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said black South Africans did not show that Ford and IBM engaged in enough wrongdoing in the United States from the 1970s to early 1990s to justify lawsuits over their alleged roles in killings, torture and other human rights abuses. Ford was accused of providing military vehicles for South African security forces, and sharing information about anti-apartheid and union activists. IBM was accused of providing technology and training to perpetuate racial separation and the "denationalization" of black South Africans. The plaintiffs sued 13 years ago under the Alien Tort Statute…

Lesen Sie hier den vollständigen Post

Artikel
+ English - Verbergen

Autor/in: US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit

This appeal presents the question of whether plaintiffs, victims of South African apartheid, have plausibly alleged relevant conduct committed within the United States that is sufficient to rebut the Alien Tort Statute’s presumption against extraterritoriality. We hold that they have not. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the August 28, 2014 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Shira A. Sheindlin, Judge).

Lesen Sie hier den vollständigen Post

Artikel
+ English - Verbergen

Autor/in: Sif Thorgeirsson, Manager, Corporate Legal Accountability Project, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

‘Closing the courtroom door: where can victims of human rights abuse by business find justice?’, 1 Dec 2014

…[M]any victims of business-related human rights abuse have no access to judicial remedy in their home country…The majority of cases of abuse we see at Business & Human Rights Resource Centre occur in weak governance zones, which often do not have an independent judiciary, and sometimes lack fully functioning courts…Of the 108 legal cases the Centre has profiled,…[54%] are related to extraterritorial claims…[but t]he effect [of Kiobel] has been a near-freeze on victims seeking justice through this…avenue. At the time of…Kiobel…, there were at least 19 corporate Alien Tort cases pending in US courts.  Since then, only one new…case has been filed…While the scope for remedy from US and English courts is narrowing…there have been three cases filed in Canadian courts addressing extraterritorial business-related human rights abuse...[and]…cases…have been filed in France, Switzerland and Germany…Concerted action is needed by governments and others to reverse the trend toward closing…avenues to justice…[Also refers to Occidental Petroleum, Cisco Systems, Drummond, Chiquita, Rio Tinto,  Daimler, ExxonMobil, Nestle, CACI, L-3 Titan, Nevsun, Hudbay Minerals and Tahoe Resources]

Lesen Sie hier den vollständigen Post

Artikel
+ English - Verbergen

Autor/in: Michael Kourabas, TriplePundit

"The End of Apartheid Litigation and the Future of Corporate Accountability", 11 Sep 2014

The quest to hold corporations liable for alleged human rights abuses committed abroad was dealt another blow late last month when a New York District Court judge tossed the last of the apartheid-related cases pending against two American corporations...In a begrudging bow to current precedent...Judge Shira Scheindlin...denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint because they would be unable to meet the stringent demands of a test announced by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals earlier in the year...It seems, then, that all an American corporation has to do to protect itself from ATS exposure is ensure that, to the extent it engages in violations of international law in another country, it does so through a foreign subsidiary...As for Judge Scheindlin...“That these plaintiffs are left without relief in an American court is regrettable,” she wrote.  “But I am bound to follow [precedent]..."...

Lesen Sie hier den vollständigen Post

Artikel
+ English - Verbergen

Autor/in: Marissa Vahlsing, Earth Rights International

"Justice Further Delayed in Apartheid Case", 04 Sep 2014

Last week..Judge Shira Scheindlin...dismissed a...case brought by black South Africans against U.S. companies IBM and Ford...But there was every indication that she did so reluctantly, and with regret...[S]he dismissed the Apartheid case, not because her personal view of the law compelled it, but because she had no other choice...[T]he federal courts have contorted the content and meaning of the Alien Tort Statute beyond recognition...In her decision...Judge Scheindlin wrote “[t]hat these plaintiffs are left without relief in an American court is regrettable. But I am bound to follow Kiobel II and Balintulo, no matter what my personal view of the law may be.”...Whatever does happen next, one thing is clear: the Apartheid plaintiffs have waited too long for justice. 

 

 

Lesen Sie hier den vollständigen Post

Artikel
+ English - Verbergen

Autor/in: Khulumani Support Group

"US District Court Judge Scheindlin dismisses the Apartheid Litigation on grounds that the recent narrowing of the scope of application of the Alien Tort Statute now prevents claims that involve foreign subsidiaries of American corporations", 1 Sep 2014

After twelve years of sustained advocacy towards ending the impunity of transnational companies for aiding and abetting the perpetration of gross human rights violations in South Africa, through their collaboration with and provision of military and other strategic equipment to the security agencies of the apartheid regime, the presiding judge, Shira Scheindlin has ruled that ATS jurisdiction following Kiobel II no longer extends “to claims involving foreign conduct by foreign subsidiaries of American corporations.”… This particular setback comes at a historic point in a growing global movement seeking to end the impunity of multinational companies for corporate crimes. In June this year, the United Nations Human Rights Council moved for the building and adoption of a binding treaty to prevent human rights violations by transnational corporations. The Khulumani litigation has long pioneered efforts to secure accountability for corporate crimes...

Lesen Sie hier den vollständigen Post