NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date of such states’ expression of consent to be bound by the Protocol, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7. Today, 1121 only 18 member states ratified Protocol No. 15, though the number of signatures was already 22. 1122 As to the ratification of Protocol No. 16, only San Marino and Slovenia have ratified it presently, 1123 though some states, such as Albania, France, Estonia, Norway and Slovakia have already signed this Protocol. 1124 Although these two Protocols do not envisage any new material guarantees applicable to Article 34 NGOs, they are of interest in view of the mechanisms for proceedings before the Court, which may influence the result of a case. Regarding the fourteen valid Protocols to the Convention, not all of them contain material rights, which expand this human rights treaty’s frameworks. Only Protocol No. 1, Protocol No. 4, Protocol No. 6, Protocol No. 7, Protocol No. 12 and Protocol No. 13 establish additional substantive rights and guarantees for the possible applicants. Similarly, as to the content of the Convention itself, not all of the rights envisaged by these Protocols are applicable to legal persons. Article 34 NGOs may not complain of violation of their rights under Protocols No. 6 and No. 13, as those Protocols set forth the abolition of the death penalty. It is absolutely clear that a business entity cannot be killed. A legal entity also cannot get married with another natural or legal person. Therefore, it may not complain that it does not enjoy equality of rights and responsibilities of a private law character between them, and in their relations with their children, as to marriage, during marriage and in the event of its dissolution under Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. A non governmental organisation has also never complained of a violation of the right to education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 within the meaning of the Convention, though some human rights NGOs may act as representatives in these cases. 1125 Unlike the Convention, the Protocols to it were not ratified by all 47 CoE member states. Therefore, in some situations, when the Court would normally find a breach of the provision of the Convention, it is forced to reject an application as inadmissible. 1126 Given this, it may be important to clarify which Protocols to the Convention are not applicable in some CoE countries and to what extent.The following analysis will cover only the Protocol containing rights applicable to Article 34 NGOs. Let us start with Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It gained entry into force on 18 May 1954. Only two CoE member states are not party to this treaty, namely, Switzerland and Monaco, 1121 21 June 2015. 1122 The information is available on the pages of the Council of Europe Treaty Office. URL: accessed 21 June 2015. 1123 21 June 2015. 1124 ThedetailedinformationisavailablefromtheCoETreatyOfficepageonProtocolNo.16totheConvention. URL: accessed 21 June 2015. 1125 D.H. [GC], cited above; Oršuš and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, ECHR 2010 and Horváth and Kiss v. Hungary , no. 11146/11, 29 January 2013. 1126 Marpa Zeeland B.V. and Metal Welding B.V., cited above.

212