Written by 15 h 40 min -Non classé-en, Environment and Climate, Strategic litigation

Procedures & Milestones : Michelin in India, the civil society is heard?

July 10, 2012: Submission of the NCP by Sherpa, Tamil Nadu Land Rights Federation – TNLRF (India), Thervoy Grama Makkal Munnerta Nala Sanga (India) CCFD – Terre Solidaire (France), Confédération Générale du Travail – CGT (France)20/09/2012 : Acceptance of admissibility of the entry by the NCP;

November 16, 2012: Petition against Michelin put on line: available here;

November 22, 2012: Hearing of plaintiffs by the National Point of Contact (NCP);

December 11, 2012: Hearing of the Michelin group by the NCP;

Michelin under construction ©

Michelin construction site panel in India

January 23, 2013: Letter to the members of the NCP, asking for a new hearing for a right of reply of the plaintiffs after consultation of all documents sent to the NCP, asking the communication of the report of the French economic mission in India, and commenting on the notification on ‘confidentiality’;

February 14, 2013: Letter from NCP refusing a new hearing;

March 8, 2013: Request concerning the smooth running of the procedure, denouncing different flaws of the procedure, particularly with regard to the two requests filed by Sherpa (Socapalm and Michelin), new request for communication of the economic mission report in India, request for an independent report and a new plaintiff hearing;

March 22, 2013: Interview with the minister of foreign trade to invoke the issue of the irregularity of the NCP: principle of accessibility, predictability, fairness and impartiality, and non-respected deadlines;

March 25, 2013: Submission of additional elements to the NCP regarding the presence of irregularities in the procedure. Reiteration of a desire for a new hearing;

April 11, 2013: exploratory meeting in presence of the enterprise and representatives of the plaintiffs (CCFD-Terre Solidaire, Sherpa and CGT) as a part of a restricted format of the NCP, by neglecting once more to summon the Indian plaintiffs.  The plaintiff’s request for clarification regarding the subject and the agenda of the meeting to prepare this meeting remains without response. The plaintiffs only discovered during the meeting that the latter was on the proposal for mediation following the enterprise’s request, and that the scope of discussion only concerns one specific point on the reference, namely the realization of an impact assessment on Human rights. All while accepting the main part of the mediation, the plaintiffs refused the terms proposed by the NCP and asked for some time to consult with the Indian plaintiffs. The NCP only granted them 3 days to consult with the Indian plaintiffs.

April 15, 2013: Letter from the plaintiffs to the NCP on the acceptance of the mediation: after consulting, the plaintiffs sent a letter precising their favorable opinion on the request from mediation. They specified that they would like that the NCP goes ahead on the examinations of griefs so that this analysis can be used as a basis for a mediation on all of the points evoked in the reference;

Despite this official communication of accepting the principle of mediation, the NCP only addressed a letter to the plaintiffs on July 31, 2013 (3 and a half months after the exploratory meeting) by which, all while acknowledging receipt of their request, did not provide any genuine responses. In the final communiqué, it is mentioned that the NCP regrets that, despite its effort and the opening of the enterprise, the mediation could not be completed, with reference to bad faith on the plaintiffs’ part;

July 31, 2013: End of the analysis of the reference presented by the NCP, end of the consultation procedures. “The NCP believed that a new hearing of the plaintiffs was not necessary, however, he solicited expert advice on certain points raised by the referral.”

September 09, 2013: Presentation of the communiqué project of the NCP to the plaintiffs;

September 23, 2013: Withdrawal of the specific circumstance by the plaintiffs due to significant failures observed in processing the folder;

September 24, 2013: Communiqué on the withdrawal and malfunction of the NCP;

September 27, 2013: NCP communiqué on the substance of the Michelin case, available here;

Last modified: 18 December 2019
Close