182 / 350
ALLA TYMOFEYEVA
CYIL 4 ȍ2013Ȏ
shareholder of the second applicant, a company selling painters’ equipment. The
applicants complained that the proceedings before the Zürich Administrative Court
were not in compliance with the Convention, namely that the principle
ne bis in
idem
was breached, as both of them were punished for the same offence. The case
was decided by the predecessor of the Court, the former European Commission of
Human Rights, which declared the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust
domestic remedies. In particular, it was mentioned that the second applicant had
failed to raise the complaints under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 in the proceedings
before the Zürich Administrative Court.
The case
Saarekallas OÜ and Others v. Estonia
67
contained the complaints of eight
applicants, among them the Saarekallas OÜ, a private limited company registered in
Estonia. The Court admitted the status of victim of the applicant company, but, in
the light of all the material in its possession, the Court ruled that these complaints
did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in
the invoked Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 and declared the application manifestly ill-
founded.
The NGO was not a victim of violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 in the case
of
Mihai Gângă et Le Syndicat Indépendant Des Juristes De Roumanie v. Romania,
68
which concerned two applicants, namely Mr. M. Mihai Gângă and the company
Le syndicat indépendant des juristes de Roumanie. Here, the Court noted that,
the applicant company was not a party to the criminal proceeding relating to the
applicant individual and, therefore, her complaints were dismissed.
The case of
Synnelius and Edsbergs Taxi AB v. Sweden
69
concerned the rights of two
applicants, Mr. Anders Synnelius, a Swedish national, and a Swedish limited liability
company Edsbergs Taxi AB, owned by him. In the course of different proceedings
related to tax matters of both applicants the individual applicant was punished twice
– specifically by the conviction for a bookkeeping offence and by the imposition of
tax surcharges. Consequently, he submitted that the principle of
ne bis in idem
under
Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 was violated. The Court found that the two offences in
question were entirely separate and differed in their essential elements and therefore
ruled that the application was inadmissible.
8. Conclusions
The special meaning of the term “non-governmental organization”, which derives
from the case law of the European Court gives us the understanding that the right to
lodge a complaint under the Convention has all types of legal persons, from non-profit
making organizations to business corporations and political parties.The Court also applies
an autonomous concept of “criminal charge” under which the severity of punishment is
67
Saarekallas OÜ and Others v. Estonia
(dec.), No. 11548/04, 15 May 2006.
68
Mihai Gângă et Le Syndicat Indépendant Des Juristes De Roumanie v. Romania
, No. 28906/09, 10 April 2012.
69
Synnelius and Edsbergs Taxi AB v. Sweden
(dec.), No. 44298/02, 17 June 2008.