Perfil de demanda judicial contra Daimler por actividades en Argentina

Daimler Nameplate by Andy C

For an English-language version of this case profile, please click here.

Für die deutsche Beschreibung des Falles, klicken Sie bitte hier.

En 2004, 23 ciudadanos argentinos instauraron una demanda, con fundamento en la Ley de Reclamación por Agravios contra Extranjeros (Alien Tort Claims Act – ATCA) y la Ley de Protección a Víctimas de la Tortura, contra DaimlerChrysler AG (actualmente solo llamada Daimler) en el tribunal federal de Estados Unidos en California. Los demandantes alegaron que una de las subsidiarias de Daimler, Mercedes Benz Argentina, había colaborado con las fuerzas de seguridad para secuestrar, detener, torturar y asesinar a los demandantes o a sus familiares cercanos, quienes trabajaban para Mercedes Benz Argentina, durante la dictadura militar argentina que duró desde 1976 hasta 1983. En el 2005, Daimler instauró una petición para desestimar el caso por falta de “jurisdicción personal” en California. La jurisdicción personal requiere un número mínimo de contactos entre el demandado y el Estado donde se instaura la demanda. Daimler, con sede principal en Alemania, argumentó que no podía ser demandada en California únicamente por el hecho de que su subsidiaria, Mercedes Benz USA, tenía dos oficinas en ese Estado.

El 22 de noviembre de 2005, el tribunal federal falló a favor de Daimler, desestimando la demanda por falta de jurisdicción personal, con fundamento en que Daimler no tenía “contacto continuo y sistemático” con Mercedes Benz USA. Los demandantes apelaron, y el tribunal de apelación revocó la decisión de la instancia inferior el 18 de mayo de 2011, argumentando que Daimler estaba sujeta a jurisdicción personal en el Estado de California. Adicionalmente, argumentó que los tribunales argentinos podrían concluir que los demandantes esperaron mucho tiempo para demandar, y que no era claro si los tribunales alemanes considerarían la demanda. El caso fue reenviado al tribunal federal para procesarlo de nuevo.

En febrero de 2012, Daimler apeló frente a la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos. El 19 de abril de 2013 la Corte Suprema aceptó dicho recurso, y el 14 de enero de 2014 revocó la decisión del tribunal federal de apelaciones, y dictaminó que Daimler no tenía suficientes lazos con el Estado de California y por lo tanto los tribunales carecían de jurisdicción para conocer del caso.

- "La Corte de EE.UU. rechazó un juicio contra Mercedes-Benz por derechos humanos en la Argentina", IECO-Clarín.com, 14 enero 2014
- “La Corte de EE.UU. trata la denuncia a Daimler”, La Nación, 23 abril 2013
- [EN] “Daimler Gets Supreme Court Hearing on Human-Rights Suit”, Greg Stohr, Bloomberg, 22 Apr 2013
- “Juicio civil a Mercedes Benz por favorecer la represión”, Télam, 12 noviembre 2011
- [EN] “Daimler Loses Bid for Review of Argentine Rights Case Ruling", Karen Gullo, Bloomberg, 9 Nov 2011
- [EN] “Daimler must face Argentina abuse lawsuit in US”, Jonathan Stempel, Reuters, 18 May 2011
- “Con expertise represivo internacional", Gustavo Veiga, Página 12, 1 diciembre 2009
- [EN] “DaimlerChrysler Wins on Human Rights Appeal”, Kate Moser, Law.com, 1 Sep 2009
- “En EU, juicio contra Mercedes-Benz implicada en la desaparición de obreros durante la dictadura”, Milenio, 22 abril 2008
- “Demanda contra gigante automotriz”, BBC Mundo, 15 enero 2004

- European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights: Corporation and Dictatorships

- [EN] [PDF] "Daimler AG v. Bauman et al. - Opinion", US Supreme Court, 14 Jan 2014 [veredicto revoca la decisión del Tribunal de Apelaciones del Noveno Circuito de los Estados Unidos]
- [EN] [PDF] "Bauman et al. v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation et al. – Order", US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 9 Nov 2011 [se ordena denegar la petición de nueva audiencia]
- [EN] [PDF] “Bauman et al. v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation et al. - Opinion”, US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 18 May 2011 [decisión establece jurisdicción personal de la corte sobre el demandado]
- [EN] [PDF] “Bauman et al v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation et al. - Opinion” US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 28 Aug 2009 (decisión retirada posteriormente) [decisión confirma sentencia de primera instancia que rechazó el caso]

Obtenga fuente RSS de estos resultados

Todos los componentes de esta historia

Artículo
+ 繁體中文 - Ocultar

Autor(a): Gwynne Skinner, Robert McCorquodale, Olivier De Schutter & Andie Lambe

"第三大支柱: 讓跨國公司侵犯人權行為的受害者獲得司法救濟", 2013年2月

“獲得司法救濟項目”(A2JR)設立的目的是確認並分析美國、加拿大和歐洲在該領域存在的阻礙…在開發該報告過程中我們進行了詳盡的現狀分析,結論顯示國家普遍沒有承擔為企業境外侵權行為的受害者提供有效司法救濟的義務。受害者在尋求救濟時仍然面臨著眾多的阻礙,有時還出現尋求救濟的途徑被完全堵死的情況。雖然相關國家在立法、法庭程序、人權保護和法律傳統方面存在著差異,但在所有司法制度下都存在著阻礙受害者尋求救助的情況。在一些案例中,這些阻礙被成功地克服,其原因往往是:律師採用了全新的訴訟方案;受害者有足夠的耐心;有著敏銳洞察力的法官願意受理此類維權訴訟。國家必須制定強硬、一致的政策,重申受害者的人權重於企業的經濟利益。企業侵權人權行為的受害者,無論侵權行為在何地發生,都有權獲得全面、有效的司法救濟。為實現上述目標,每一個國家都應該審視司法制度中的存在障礙,並考慮採取行動加以消除,特別是考慮本報告提出的相關建議...

Lea todo el artículo aquí

Reporte
+ 简体中文 - Ocultar

Autor(a): Gwynne Skinner, Robert McCorquodale, Olivier De Schutter & Andie Lambe

"第三大支柱: 让跨国公司侵犯人权行为的受害者获得司法救济", 2013年2月

“获得司法救济项目”(A2JR)设立的目的是确认并分析美国、加拿大和欧洲在该领域存在的阻碍…在开发该报告过程中我们进行了详尽的现状分析,结论显示国家普遍没有承担为企业境外侵权行为的受害者提供有效司法救济的义务。受害者在寻求救济时仍然面临着众多的阻碍,有时还出现寻求救济的途径被完全堵死的情况。虽然相关国家在立法、法庭程序、人权保护和法律传统方面存在着差异,但在所有司法制度下都存在着阻碍受害者寻求救助的情况。在一些案例中,这些阻碍被成功地克服,其原因往往是:律师采用了全新的诉讼方案;受害者有足够的耐心;有着敏锐洞察力的法官愿意受理此类维权诉讼。国家必须制定强硬、一致的政策,重申受害者的人权重于企业的经济利益。企业侵权人权行为的受害者,无论侵权行为在何地发生,都有权获得全面、有效的司法救济。为实现上述目标,每一个国家都应该审视司法制度中的存在障碍,并考虑采取行动加以消除,特别是考虑本报告提出的相关建议...

Lea todo el artículo aquí

Descargue todo el documento aquí

Artículo
+ English - Ocultar

Autor(a): 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]

Lea todo el artículo aquí

Artículo
+ English - Ocultar

Autor(a): Professor F. J. Zamora Cabot, Univ. Jaume I de Castellón (Spain)

"Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Daimler AG V. Bauman et al case: closing the golden door", Nov 2014

...Daimler...was a good opportunity for the [US Supreme] Court to address details and/or elucidate some of the loose threads that...[it] had very carefully left in its resolution of Kiobel...[E]ven assuming the background of Kiobel, the solution given in Daimler goes beyond it...Large companies, which continually...receive all types of rights, use their complex networks...to avoid state regulations, avoid paying taxes, localize and delocalize their activities without paying attention to the...consequences...increas[e] their impunity in the face of responsibilities arising from the terrible Human Rights abuses continuously perpetrated by many of them...Endorsing this reality...is where th[e Daimler] decision, alongside Kiobel, takes us...[I]t is undeniable that businesses and their advisors are overjoyed...The victims, on the other hand, are thrown out into external darkness...The High Court is decisively closing the door it had left “slightly ajar” en Sosa in the face of the worst Human Rights violations...

Descargue todo el documento aquí

Artículo
+ English - Ocultar

Autor(a): Lauren Carasik, Western New England University School of Law, in Al Jazeera America

"The uphill battle to hold US corporations accountable for abuses abroad", 8 Aug 2014 

...[T]he Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed a lawsuit against...Chiquita by 4,000 victims of...violence during Colombia’s...civil war...The court found that though Chiquita executives in Ohio did make illegal payments to the AUC, the case did not “touch and concern” the U.S...Judge...Martin [dissenting opinion]...wrote, “we disarm innocents against American corporations that engage in human rights violations abroad”...[T]he case highlights a glaring gap in the international framework...and underscores the importance of developing mechanisms to ensure that victims have access to judicial remedies...[They] face...prohibitive costs of litigation across borders, statutes of limitations and corporate structures that are built on legally distinct entities and insulate companies from liability...[T]he issue is a marked power imbalance: Big companies employ their considerable resources to shield themselves and impose double standards that serve their interests. They invoke the protections of international law when it suits them…Yet they aggressively resist efforts to impose accountability across borders…

Lea todo el artículo aquí

Artículo
+ English - Ocultar

Autor(a): Claes Cronstedt, Rachel Chambers, Adrienne Margolis, David Rönnegard, Robert C. Thompson & Katherine Tyler

We have…[worked] towards…the creation of an international tribunal on business and human rights…The Tribunal would maintain rosters of highly regarded jurists and attorneys…[It] would apply tort/delict principles…irrespective of the locus of the abuses, the nationalities of those involved or whether the perpetrators are legal or natural persons (corporations or individual business executives)…[It] would have the authority to award compensation…Modern technology would enable the Tribunal to carry out its functions worldwide…The Tribunal would likely have wide-ranging subject matter jurisdiction, covering not only the grave abuses that form the core crimes under the Rome Statute…but also all other internationally-recognized human rights…The Tribunal could use its discretion as to which particular disputes it would accept, adopting standards…such as the merits of the claim, the gravity of the abuse and the extent of the injuries, the need to resolve controversial legal issues, and the potential importance of the outcome as a precedent…

Lea todo el artículo aquí

Artículo
+ English - Ocultar

Autor(a): American Bar Association, Lara Blecher, Nancy Kaymar Stafford & Gretchen C. Bellamy (editors)

…[A] fascinating collection of perspectives on the key developments and trends in business and human rights law. Written by a highly respected panel of experts, [it]…examines the difficult and nuanced questions associated with corporate accountability…[It]…contributes unique and thoughtful perspectives, legally grounded and passionately contended, to the ongoing dialogue about the intersection of human rights and corporate responsibility…[It]…focuses mainly on developments in the United States and the United Kingdom, although examples of legal developments in corporate accountability for human rights in developing countries are discussed…This book considers the question: how will lawyers and courts deal with the thorny issue of extraterritoriality in transnational litigation brought against companies for human rights abuses abroad?...[Authors include Justine Nolan, Ralph G. Steinhardt, Robert McCorquodale, Penelope Simons, Jeffrey S. Vogt, Beth Stephens, Paul Hoffman, Neil A. F. Popovic, Erika R. George, Rachel Chambers, Katherine Tyler, Shubhaa Srinivasan, Peter T. Muchlinski, Virginie Rouas, Sheldon Leader, Mary Dowell-Jones, Andrew Kassoy, Nathan Gilbert & Sarah Altschuller]

Lea todo el artículo aquí

Artículo
+ English - Ocultar

Autor(a): Claes Cronstedt, Rachel Chambers, Adrienne Margolis, David Rönnegard, Robert C. Thompson, Katherine Tyler

We have come together to work towards the ultimate goal of the creation of an international arbitration tribunal on business and human rights...The Tribunal, while unaffiliated with any governmental organization, would maintain a roster of highly regarded jurists and attorneys who are familiar with human rights law. The Tribunal would act in a fair and impartial manner. The Tribunal would apply tort principles to cases involving business involvement in human rights abuses throughout the world, irrespective of the locus of the crimes, the nationalities of those involved or whether the perpetrators are legal or natural persons...In appropriate cases, the Tribunal would have the authority to award compensation...The Tribunal would likely have wide-ranging subject matter jurisdiction, covering not only the grave abuses that form the core crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court but also all other internationally-recognized human rights...This draft is intended to provide the framework for further discussions...[refers to Shell, Daimler]

Lea todo el artículo aquí

Artículo
+ English - Ocultar

Autor(a): Sander Bak, Atara Miller & Jed Schwartz, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, in Mondaq (USA)

Following the trend of its recent decisions…the Supreme Court…in Daimler AG v. Bauman, reversed the Ninth Circuit, and held that a corporation could not be sued in the US for actions that took place entirely abroad, even if [it] has some general contacts within the forum state…[T]he Supreme Court ruled that it would violate due process to subject a foreign corporation…to general jurisdiction in California based on its subsidiary's systematic contacts with that state…If…[Mercedes-Benz USA]'s sales activities in California could make Daimler subject to jurisdiction for any conduct that occurred throughout the world, the same would be true for "every other State in which MBUSA's sales are sizable…[S]uch an "exorbitant" exercise of jurisdiction would be unfair…[This] decision will restrict the ability of plaintiffs to bring suit in the US against foreign corporate defendants where the allegations are based on extraterritorial activities. [Refers to Mercedes-Benz (part of Daimler)]

Lea todo el artículo aquí

Artículo
+ English - Ocultar

Autor(a): Greg Stohr, Bloomberg

The U.S. Supreme Court gave multinational companies a stronger shield against lawsuits, throwing out a case against Daimler AG over a company unit’s alleged collaboration in torture and killings in Argentina. The justices unanimously said the parent company didn’t have enough ties to California to give courts there the authority to hear the case…The ruling reversed a federal appeals court decision that had let the case go forward. The ruling adds to a line of Supreme Court decisions that have reduced the options available to people trying to sue multinational corporations in American courts…[Also refers to Goodyear, Mercedes-Benz (part of Daimler)]

Lea todo el artículo aquí