NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

the documents, though, including the Convention, required having independence from the state authorities. Analysis of the Convention specifically has shown that even in the text of this treaty itself, there are differences in perception of the term ‘non-governmental organisation’ depending on the role which NGO plays in the proceedings before the Court. It was clearly established in the case-law of this international court that business corporations and political parties may participate in the capacity of an applicant. When speaking of the roles of a representative, a third party or an information provider, the practice did not prove that NGOs in these capacities are also businesses and political entities. The opposite was also not confirmed. Nonetheless, the case-law demonstrates that the applicants were usually represented by famous human rights NGOs, such as AI, HRW and Interights. 1522 The same subjects, as a rule, provided the Court with their submission of a third party 1523 or with any other required information. 1524 Therefore, it was concluded that NGOs with applicant status are different from those with other standings. Taking into account the assessment made, the author proposes the following definition of an NGO under Article 34 of the Convention (envisaging a position of an applicant): ‘Article 34 NGO is a profit or non-profit making legal entity having victim status, with or without formal existence, which does not directly participate in the exercise of governmental powers and has a sufficient degree of independence fromgovernmental control’. The author distinguishes between the terms ‘legal entity’ and ‘legal person’ as the last notion may signify the subject officially recognised by the state. A victim status requirement with regard to Article 34 NGOs is problematic as they may not enjoy the position of all types of victims. In particular, it is hard to imagine how an NGO may have close relationships with a direct victim to obtain an indirect victim status. The most comparable was a position of the CLR in the case of Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania . 1525 Here, however, the Court held that the NGO at issue is a de facto representative, not a victim. This concept was used by the Court exclusively in this judgment and, presently, there is no further case-law confirming such an approach. Furthermore, the author was not able to find any case where non-governmental organisations received a status of a potential victim; although, in theory, it is possible. An examination of judgments and decisions of the Court proves the following list of provisions, which may be applicable to an Article 34 NGO, as an direct victim, under the Convention: Article 6 (right to a fair trial); 1526 Article 7 (no punishment 1522 D.H. [GC], cited above. 1523 Othman (Abu Qatada) , cited above; and Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 3727/08, 7 February 2012. 1524 Abdulkhakov , cited above. 1525 Centre for Legal Resources [GC], cited above. 1526 Canea Catholic Church , cited above; Procola , cited above; Association Ekin , cited above, and Saarekallas OÜ , cited above.

296