Belgium v. Spain International court of Justice,1970 Case concerning Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Co. Annabelle & 은영

Page  2 Facts The Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Co. A. Incorporated in 1911 under Canadian law B. Supply electricity in Spain C. A limited liability company Its capital was represented by shares. D. Operated in Spain but was owned mostly by Belgians-88% shareholders

Page  3 Contextual background A. Barcelona Traction issued bonds In 1936, the servicing of the BT bonds suspended by Spanish civil war. After war, Spanish Authorities refuse resumption B. In 1938, Spain declared the company bankrupt Took actions detriment to its shareholders. C. Belgium (Plaintiff) brought a suit against Spain (Dependant) in the ICJ

Page  4 Belgium V Spain Plaintiff: Belgium, seek reparation for damage Defendant: Spain, refuse compensation to Belgian shareholders Barcelona Traction(BT): 1) Headquarter: Canada. 2) Business place: Spain 3) Major shareholder: Belgian

Page  5 Transaction diagram Plaintiff: Barcelona Traction Have subsidiary companies in Canada & Spain Defendant: Spain government electricity Money Servicing of the Bonds

Page  6 shareholder A shareholder or stockholder A. an individual or institution that legally owns one or more shares of stock in a public or private corporation.individualsharesstock B. Shareholders own the stock, but not the corporation itself

Page  7 Shareholders' direct rights Independent rights of complaining: The right (not interests) to 1)any declared dividend, 2) attend and vote at any general meetings, 3) share in the residual assets of the company in liquidation.

Page  8 Judge ‘s interpretation 1. Not a diplomatic claim :Belgium lacked just standi 2. The act only infringed the company’s rights No responsibility to shareholders. 3. Distinction : Direct infringement to shareholders’ rights & Difficulties or financial losses of interests result from company's action

Page  9 Issue A. Whether the shareholders can be a legal entity separate from the company itself B. Whether Belgium can complain on behalf of Barcelona Traction’s shareholders C. Whether Spain has an obligation to make reparation for Belgium shareholders

Page  10 Rule of Law The general rule is that A. The entity of the company is separate from that of the shareholder with a distinct set of rights. B. The shareholder cannot be identified with company

Page  11 Application Corporations are juridical entities Have legal identities separate from that of their owners. Corporate entities have rights and obligations to themselves with independent corporate personality. It means that rights and benefits accruing to the company belong to the company and not its owners.

Page  12 Application A. Only a company can claim to damage or financial loss caused by unfair or illegal actions by other entities such as a State. B. In any event shareholders are bound to take account of the risk of capital depreciation or loss, resulting from commercial hazards or from prejudice caused to the company by illegal treatment.

Page  13 Application C. There is a distinction Between injury of a right & injury to a simple interest. D. They cannot claim on financial loss of their investment. Only when their rights such as the right to any declared dividend is directly infringed, they have an independent right of action.

Page  14 Conclusion The fact that shareholder who were suffered from damage were Belgian cannot justify a diplomatic claim. Answers A. Yes. The shareholders can be a legal entity separate from the company itself B. No. Belgium can’t complain on behalf of Barcelona Traction’s shareholders C. No. Spain doesn’t have an obligation to make reparation for Belgium shareholders

Page  15 More contextual settings: Injured party : company, but not shareholders. Belgium could not sue Spain for BT's Belgian owners. Interensitnlgy, Canada gave up the right of protection of BT.

Page  16 Case Points Company &Shareholders are mutually independent shareholders' limited liability limited assets & rights of the company Only the company can seek judicial remedies unless the shareholder's direct rights have been infringed

Page  17 Argument "Community of destiny": the relationship between shareholders&company--- interconnected in suffering from damage--- should be seperated in defending their own rights.

Thank you