NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

that there was a limitation on the right of access to a court under Article 6 of the Convention. In some cases, where a government has acknowledged a violation of the right of access to a court and has paid corresponding compensation, the Court simply struck out the case from its list without holding that there was a breach of the Convention. This was the case of Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden. 571 This case concerned the inability of the applicant union to challenge the Swedish Competition Authority’s decision, impacting a collective labour agreement to which the union was a party. The cases of Business Şi Investiţii Pentru Toţi v. Moldova, 572 Lawyer Partners a.s. v. Slovakia 573 and Zlínsat, spol. s r.o., v. Bulgaria 574 serve as additional examples of cases concerned with Article 34 NGOs’ access to courts. In the end, the right of access to a court may overlap with the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention. 575 The main difference is that the last provision is not independent and must be connected with an inability to attain an effective remedy in respect of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. On the other hand, Article 6 provides stricter guarantees in that it requires a remedy before a court. 576 In any case, the right to an effective remedy will be covered in Part 2.8 of this book. 2.2.3 The right to an independent and impartial tribunal The other important guarantee, derived from Article 6 of the Convention and applicable to Article 34 NGOs, is the right to an independent and impartial tribunal. 577 Bodies, which are not courts, may exercise functions that are determinative for civil rights and obligations or criminal charges. 578 Nevertheless, this is acceptable only as long as they comply with the requirements of independence and impartiality. In its case-law, the Court elaborated the test of independence of judicial bodies. 579 When deciding whether a tribunal is independent, it considers : 1) the manner of appointment of its members; 2) the duration of their office; 3) the existence of guarantees against outside pressures; and 4) whether the body presents an appearance of independence. 580 Concerning the question of ‘impartiality’ for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, there are two aspects of this requirement, a subjective and an objective Lawyer Partners a.s. v. Slovakia , nos. 54252/07, 3274/08, 3377/08, 3505/08, 3526/08, 3741/08, 3786/08, 3807/08, 3824/08, 15055/08, 29548/08, 29551/08, 29552/08, 29555/08 and 29557/08, ECHR 2009. 574 Zlínsat, spol. s r.o., v. Bulgaria , no. 57785/00, § 84, 15 June 2006. 575 Golder, cited above. 576 HARRIS, 2009, cited above, p. 246. 577 HUBÁLKOVÁ, E. Právo na spravedlivé řízení a další procesní práva . ASPI, a.s., Praha 2006, p. 49-55. 578 Ringeisen v. Austria , 16 July 1971, § 95, Series a no. 13. 579 This test is different from the test of independence concerning relations of NGOs with national governments. 580 Agrokompleks, cited above, § 125. 571 Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden (striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006. 572 Business Şi Investiţii Pentru Toţi v. Moldova , no. 39391/04, 13 October 2009. 573

108