NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

Tyumen v. Ukraine , 183 Holy Monasteries v. Greece 184 and in Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Turkey. 185 As a result, it is possible to conclude that the expression ‘any person’ in the Convention concerns purely natural persons. Group of individuals The content of the last category of applicants under Article 34 of the Convention, which is the ‘group of individuals’, is even more problematic. The authors of the Czech manual to the Convention 186 consider that this category of subjects entitled to file a complaint to the Court is redundant, particularly in light of the fact that such applicants may apply to the Court either as a person or as an NGO. In practice, there exist no special applications for groups of individuals. The application form, which must be filled in to apply to the Court, contains only two types of fields: A. The applicant (Individual) and B. The applicant (Organisation). 187 In accordance with the Notes for filling in the application form, introduced by the Registry of the Court, “[w]here an applicant or representative lodges complaints on behalf of two or more applicants whose applications are based on different facts, a separate application form should be filled in for each individual, giving all the information required”. 188 This may signify that the ‘group of individuals’ is a grouping of the applicants, who are natural persons. It its case-law, the Court has dealt with the status of the category ‘group of individuals’ only on very rare occasion. It marginally referred to this question in its decision in the case of Times Newspaper Ltd, The Sunday Times, Harold Evans v. the United Kingdom. 189 In the instant case, the application was introduced by Mr Harold Evans, the editor of The Sunday Times. He made the application both in his personal capacity and as editor of the Sunday Times (the third applicant), as well as on behalf of The Sunday Times as a group of journalists (the second applicant), and on behalf of Times Newspapers Limited (the first applicant). As to the legal status of the group of journalists under the Convention, the Commission noted that it was entitled under Article 25 (currently Article 34) of the Convention to bring the present case before it. In the explanation for this conclusion, the Commission pointed out: “As regards the second applicant it is clear that The Sunday Times as a printing product, owned and published by the first applicant, does not as such fall within any of the categories of petitioners set forth in Article 25 of the Convention, nor can it claim as such to be a victim of a breach of Article 10. However, in the present case, the application 185 Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines , cited above, § 80-82. 186 KMEC, 2012, cited above, p. 26. 187 The application form is available from accessed 20 July 2015. 188 Notes for filling in the application form are available from accessed 20 July 2015. 189 Times Newspaper Ltd, The Sunday Times, Harold Evans v. the United Kingdom Application (dec.), no. 6538/74, unpublished. 183 Ukraine-Tyumen , cited above, § 26. The Holy Monasteries , cited above, § 49. 184

44