Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

You are here: Home / Case database / ADIMED vs. ES-KO International

Issue: Groupe Kilu (DRC) labour violations

Developments/Outcome The NCPs reported strong reluctance by the companies to engage in the case. The Belgian and French NCPs both rejected the case on grounds they lacked territorial jurisdiction over ES-KO in Monaco and Kilu group in the DRC. Although a branch of Kilu Group was located in Belgium, the Belgian NCP considered that the branch lacked independent legal personality from its parent in the DRC and could not be considered to establish Belgian jurisdiction over the company. The Belgian NCP encouraged the complainant to pursue the complaint under Congolese law, and also urged the OECD to explore ways to encourage the European microstates of Andorra, Lichtenstein, San Marino, the Vatican, Monaco, and Malta to promote the OECD Guidelines to their multinationals. ADIMED asked the Belgian and French NCPs to share the complaint with their consulates in Monaco. Both NCPs assert they did so.

2 cases relating to 'Groupe Kilu (DRC) labour violations':

Title Issue Date filed Status
ADIMED vs. ES-KO International Groupe Kilu (DRC) labour violations 5 May 2018
ADIMED vs. Groupe Kilu Groupe Kilu (DRC) labour violations 5 March 2018 Rejected

Personal tools

OECD Watch is hosted by