NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

before the Court under Article 6 of the Convention. 206 There are plenty of examples in the case-law of the Court of when non-governmental organisations maintaining that they were subject to a breach of Articles 9, 207 10, 208 11 209 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 210 were recognised as having the locus standi of a direct victim. The Chapter II will cover a detailed description of the rights that are applicable to NGOs in view of the status of a direct victim. Nevertheless, without further special analysis, due to the nature of legal persons, it is already clear that NGOs may not personally suffer from torture 211 or be captured into slavery. 212 The violation should directly concern the rights of an NGO, not those of its members. In the case of Vallianatos and Others v. Greece , 213 the application was lodged with the Court by a few Greek nationals, and by the association Synthessi – Information, Awareness-raising and Research, a legal entity based in Athens. The applicants alleged a breach of Article 8, taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, because under domestic law ‘civil unions’ were designed only for couples composed of different-sex adults. In their opinion, it amounted to unjustified discrimination between different-sex and same-sex couples, to the detriment of the latter. The Greek government argued, inter alia , that the complaint was inadmissible ratione personae in view of the fact that the association, as a legal entity, could not be a direct or indirect victim of the alleged violations. In response to the government’s arguments, the Court firstly noted that the concept of ‘victim’ must be interpreted autonomously and irrespective of domestic concepts such as those concerning an interest or capacity to act. 214 It reiterated that, in the context of Article 34 of the Convention, the word ‘victim’ denotes the person or persons directly or indirectly affected by the alleged violation. 215 With regard to the applicant association, the Court observed that it was a not-for-profit union, which followed an aim to provide psychological support to gays and lesbians. In the end, it found that the applicant, being a legal entity, could not be considered a direct or indirect ‘victim’ within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. This case confirms the theoretical concepts 206 Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine , no. 48553/99, ECHR 2002-VII and Agrokompleks v. Ukraine , no. 23465/03, 6 October 2011. 207 Church of Scientology of St Petersburg and Others v. Russia , no. 47191/06, 2 October 2014; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. the United Kingdom , no. 7552/09, 4 March 2014 and Jehovas Zeugen in Österreich v. Austria , no. 27540/05, 25 September 2012. 208 Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria , no. 39394/98, ECHR 2003-XI; Centro Europa 7 S.r.l., cited above; RTBF v. Belgium , no. 50084/06, ECHR 2011 (extracts) and Radio Twist a.s. v. Slovakia , no. 62202/00, ECHR 2006-XV. 209 Christian Democratic People‘s Party v. Moldova , no. 28793/02, ECHR 2006-II; Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani v. Italy , no. 35972/97, ECHR 2001-VIII and Wilson, National Union of Journalists and Others v. the United Kingdom , nos. 30668/96, 30671/96 and 30678/96, ECHR 2002-V. 210 Oferta Plus S.R.L. v. Moldova , no. 14385/04, 19 December 2006; Microintelect OOD v. Bulgaria , no. 34129/03, 4 March 2014 and East West Alliance Limited v. Ukraine, no. 19336/04, 23 January 2014.

211 Article 3 of the Convention. 212 Article 4 of the Convention. 213 Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, ECHR 2013. 214 Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain , no. 62543/00, § 35, ECHR 2004-III. 215 SARL du Parc d’Activités de Blotzheim v. France , no. 72377/01, § 20, 11 July 2006.

48