NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

shareholders from exercising their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. In their opinion, the loss of all control of it constituted a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These were, for instance, the cases of Skyropiia Yialias Ltd v. Turkey, 1189 Rock Ruby Hotels Ltd v. Turkey 1190 and Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey. 1191 In all the judgments, the Court held in particular that there had been a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The Court made a reference to its judgment in the case of Cyprus v. Turkey , 1192 and noted that Greek Cypriots were unable to have access to their property in northern Cyprus by reason of the restrictions placed by the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus authorities on their physical access to that property. The continuing and total denial of access to their property was a clear interference with the right of the displaced Greek Cypriots to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Finding a violation under Article 6 of the Convention, when property rights were also allegedly breached, does not necessarily lead to a ruling that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been infringed. This is mostly true in the cases concerning the length of the proceedings. In the case of Solaz v. Ukraine , 1193 the Russian limited liability company Solaz complained, inter alia , about unlawful interference with its property rights. The Court observed that the criminal proceedings underlying the applicant company’s civil claim are still pending. Complaints in this regard were therefore also premature. It followed that this part of the application was rejected under Article 35 § 1 and 4 of the Convention. The Court nonetheless pointed out that, after the respective final rulings are given, it will be open to the applicant to re-submit its complaints to the Court. Similarly, in the case of JGK Statyba Ltd and Guselnikovas v. Lithuania , 1194 the applicants complained that the proceedings had been unreasonably long and that. As a result of the prolonged seizure of the houses, they had been unable to use their property, leading to considerable financial losses and an interference with the company’s activity. The Court supported the allegations and ruled that there had been an infringement of both Artciles of the Convention. Analysed cases show that the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions is one of the key guarantees applicable to Article 34 NGOs. Very often applicants complain about breaches of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of alleged inconsistencies with the principles of fair trial, such as legal certainty, independence and impartiality of the judiciary, length of the proceedings or non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions. The next part of the book will undertake a study of the Court’s case-law on elections concerning Article 34 NGOs.

1189 Skyropiia Yialias Ltd , cited above, § 13. 1190 Rock Ruby Hotels Ltd , cited above, § 12. 1191 Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios , cited above, § 23. 1192 Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, §§ 187 and 189, ECHR 2001-IV. 1193 Solaz v. Ukraine , no. 35184/02, § 44, 12 June 2008. 1194 JGK Statyba Ltd, cited above.

226