Over the last few years, litigation in European courts against gross human rights violations and widespread environmental disasters has intensified. Recent case law shows that victims domiciled in third States attempt to start proceedings in Europe, where the parent company of a negligent local subsidiary is seated. In light of this, national courts of the EU have been asked to determine whether the parent company located in the State of the court seized with the matter may serve as an ʻanchor defendantʼ for claims against its foreign subsidiary. In Okpabi & Ors v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc & Anor, Akpan v. RDS and KiK, national courts' assessment regarding international jurisdiction significantly diverged. Unsatisfied with this result, some States adopted -or are in the process of adopting- legislations that establish or reinforce the duty of care or vigilance of parent companies directly towards victims. The present paper examines the latest legislative developments that took place in France, Switzerland and Germany. Notably, many States have opted for the amendment of their substantive law (only) rather than (additionally) for the modification of private international law rules.

中文翻译：

---

本地父母作为欧洲法院的“主要被告”，在人权和环境损害诉讼中向其外国子公司提出索赔：最近的判例法和立法趋势

在过去几年中，欧洲法院针对严重侵犯人权和广泛环境灾难的诉讼愈演愈烈。最近的判例法表明，居住在第三国的受害者试图在欧洲启动诉讼程序，而一家疏忽大意的当地子公司的母公司就设在欧洲。有鉴于此，欧盟国家法院已被要求确定位于受案法院所在国的母公司是否可以作为对其外国子公司的索赔的“主要被告”。在 Okpabi & Ors v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc & Anor, Akpan v. RDS 和 KiK，国家法院对国际管辖权的评估存在重大分歧。对这个结果不满意，一些国家通过——或正在通过——立法，确立或加强母公司直接对受害者的注意或警惕义务。本文件考察了法国、瑞士和德国的最新立法发展。值得注意的是，许多国家选择（仅）修改其实体法，而不（另外）选择修改国际私法规则。