NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

its positive obligation to put in place an appropriate legislative and administrative framework to guarantee effective media pluralism. The issue relating to licensing of broadcasting companies was also complained of in the cases of Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia, 920 Autronic AG v. Switzerland, 921 and Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland. 922 As mentioned before, the palette of complaints introduced by Article 34 NGOs, in respect of freedom of expression, is full of colours. The following part will investigate a number of other allegations, which were not comprised by the groups analysed above. 2.6.3 Other reasons of alleged violations A number of cases cannot be included in one of the above-mentioned categories and concern specific aspects of the right to freedom of expression. One of these cases related to the refusal to allow Article 34 NGOs access to information despite a binding decision directing disclosure. 923 Freedom of expression as stipulated in paragraph 1 contains not only the right to provide the others with information, but also to receive it. In the case of Youth Initiative for Human Rights v. Serbia , the applicant company requested the intelligence agency to provide it with some factual information concerning the use of electronic surveillance measures. 924 The agency first refused the request, relying on a statutory provision. After an order of the Information Commissioner that the information at issue be disclosed, the intelligence agency notified the applicant that it did not hold that information. The Court observed that such a response was unpersuasive in view of the nature of that information (the number of people subjected to electronic surveillance by that agency in 2005) and the agency’s initial response. It concluded that the obstinate reluctance of the intelligence agency of Serbia to comply with the order of the Commissioner was in defiance of domestic law and tantamount to arbitrariness. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. In the case of Perihan and Mezopotamya Basın Yayın A.Ş. v. Turkey , 925 the application was lodged with the Court by a Turkish national, Mr Zübeyir Perihan and by a Turkish company, Mezopotamya Basın Yayın A. Ş. (‘Mesopotamia Publishing’). The case concerned the company’s dissolution. Following police searches of three of its local branch offices and the confiscation of allegedly illegal publications, including material allegedly used for propaganda in favour of the illegal Kurdistan Workers’ Party (‘PKK’), theMinistry of Industry and Trade brought proceedings with the aim to dissolve Mesopotamia Publishing on account of its activities against public order. The domestic 920 Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia , no. 32283/04, 17 June 2008. 921 Autronic AG, cited above. 922 Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland , no. 32772/02, 4 October 2007 and AROLD, Nina-Louisa. The Legal Culture of the European Court of Human Rights . Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007, p. 209. 923 Youth Initiative for Human Rights , cited above. 924 Ibid., § 22. 925 Perihan , cited above, § 1.

169