CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ INDIRECT OBLIGATIONS OF BUSINESS ENTITIES UNDER THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION… with Convention norms. By these means, indirect obligations are imposed on business entities by the states that have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights. Indirect obligations of business entities may be identified based upon the numerous provisions of the Convention. In the following analysis, an examination of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the norms of the Convention is debated in sequential order beginning with Article 2 of the Convention and ending with Article 14 to the Convention. This manuscript will not cover the Protocols to the Convention as these will be the subject of the author’s future research. The objective of the current study is to define which norms of the Convention may impose indirect obligations on business entities based upon references from the Court’s case-law. Given the requirements as to the length of the current paper, the following analysis will be short and purely illustrative. Article 2 of the Convention (Right to life) This provision of the Convention may impose on business entities an indirect obligation to operate their activity and to take necessary steps to ensure that the lives of people are not endangered. In the case of Öneryıldız v. Turkey , 63 the state was held liable for the breach of Article 2 of the Convention in connection with deaths resulting from an accidental explosion at the Ümraniye municipal rubbish site due to its regulatory framework being proved defective. Due to the status of municipality under the Convention, this case links to the situation when a business entity acts as a state agent. However, the lack of an appropriate legal framework may also influence the behaviour of private subjects. Therefore, the aforementioned example The Convention may impose an indirect obligation on business entities to refrain from actions that may amount to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In the case of O’Keeffe v. Ireland 64 relating to sexual abuse by a teacher in Dunderrow National School, the Court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Dunderrow National School may be viewed as a so-called ‘state agent’; however, the position of private entities in this regard would be the same. Corporal punishment that took place in a private school was considered by the Court in the case of Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom. 65 The Court did not find an infringement of the Convention; not because of the status of the educational institution, but because the minimum level of severity had not been attained. 66 Again, we may derive indirect human rights obligations for business entities. Article 4 of the Convention (Prohibition of slavery and forced labour) In the case of Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, Cyprus was found liable for breach of its positive obligations to take protective measures against human trafficking to protect Ms Rantseva. 67 Given that a violation of Article 4 of the Convention was determined, in view of involvement in human trafficking by Mr. X. A., the owner of a cabaret in Limassol, and given the idea of 63 Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, ECHR 2004-XII. 64 O ’ Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, § 169, ECHR 2014 (extracts). 65 Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom , 25 March 1993, § 32, Series A no. 247-C. 66 The opposite example is the case Tyrer v. the United Kingdom , 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26. 67 Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia , no. 25965/04, § 298, ECHR 2010 (extracts). may be suitable for corporate indirect obligations as well. Article 3 of the Convention (Prohibition of torture)

301