NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

and that therefore there is nothing to suggest that the present application was effectively brought by the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is not a party to the Convention. 82 . It follows that the applicant company is entitled to bring an application under Article 34 of the Convention and that therefore the first part of the Government’s objection should be dismissed. ” 278 This brilliant description confirms the requirement of independence from state authorities and the connected issue of victim status. The Court regarded the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines as a commercial entity independent from the state, and, as a result, an NGO within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. The described above application in the case of Times Newspaper Ltd, The Sunday Times, Harold Evans v. the United Kingdom 279 was introduced by , inter alia , the company ‘Times Newspapers Limited’. In this case, the Commission stated: “Times Newspapers Ltd. is a legal person under English law, a company with corporate capacity and limited liability, created by registration under the relevant statute. As such it falls clearly within one of the categories of petitioners set out in Art. 25 [currently Article 34] of the Convention 280 as a ‘non-governmental organisation’ . Furthermore, it was the party to the domestic proceedings concerned in the present case and the injunction granted by the House of Lords expressly applies to it. It follows that the first applicant may clearly claim to be a victim of a breach of Article 10 of the Convention notwithstanding the fact that it possesses legal and not natural personality…” This case confirmed that a profit-making newspaper company is also the NGO under the Convention. Hundreds of judgments exist where applicants appear as commercial companies of different types, such as limited liability companies, 281 public limited companies, 282 joint stock companies 283 and many others, exercising activities of all kinds, from arranging funerals 284 to maintaining taxi services 285 and TV broadcasting. 286 In order to be able to lodge a complaint with the Court, the company does not have to be registered in one of the CoE Member States. The Court has dealt 281 See, for instance, British-American Tobacco Company Ltd v. the Netherlands , 20 November 1995, Series a no. 331, 3A.CZ s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic , no. 21835/06, 10 February 2011, Alithia Publishing Company Ltd and Constantinides v. Cyprus , no. 17550/03, 22 May 2008, OOO Rusatommet v. Russia , no. 61651/00, 14 June 2005, Rosenzweig and Bonded Warehouses Ltd v. Poland , no. 51728/99, 28 July 2005; Bernh Larsen Holding AS , cited above. 282 For example, S.A. Dangeville v. France , no. 36677/97, ECHR 2002-III, S.A. Sitram v. Belgium , no. 49495/99, 15 November 2002, S.A.GE.MA S.N.C. v. Italy , no. 40184/98, 27 April 2000, N.T. Giannousis and Kliafas Brothers S.A. v. Greece , no. 2898/03, 14 December 2006, Sociedade Agrícola do Ameixial, S.A v. Portugal , no. 10143/07, 11 January 2011. 283 Kirovogradoblenergo, PAT, cited above; Askon AD, cited above; OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos, cited above; OAO Plodovaya Kompaniya, cited above. 284 Oklešen and Pokopališko Pogrebne Storitve Leopold, cited above. 285 Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag, cited above. 286 Centro Europa 7 S.r.l., cited above. 278 Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines , cited above, § 78-82. 279 Times Newspaper Ltd, (dec.), cited above. 280 Article 25 of the Convention was substituted by Article 34 in 1994.

61