NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

with applications filed by American 287 or Seychellesv 288 legal persons. To make an application admissible, it is important that it contains complaints of Convention violations against a state which has signed this international treaty. The issues raised in the cases brought by profit-making NGOs are, of course, different from those submitted, for instance, by religious groups or associations. The majority of cases brought by profit-making NGOs concern the right to fair trial (Article 6 of the Convention) and the right to property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). As to cases under Article 6, the Court has examined the independence and impartiality of a tribunal in the proceedings regarding the cessation of company’s activity, 289 insolvency proceedings 290 and tax assessment proceedings. 291 There were no violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention when the independence and impartiality of the Conseil d’Etat was undermined by the fact that it exercised judicial functions concurrently with its administrative functions under the Code of Administrative Justice. 292 However, in the case concerning the pressure by the Ukrainian state authorities on the domestic courts, the Court held that the courts deciding the case lacked independence when they reopened a finally settled court decision, which undeniably breached the principle of legal certainty. 293 The length of proceedings 294 was the most common issue relating to Article 6 of the Convention. The business entities also invoked this Article by complaining of an inability to enforce the final court’s decision, such as an arbitration award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court. 295 The Court found violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of companies in the following cases: confiscation of companies’ property; 296 refusal of a state to pay the arbitration award by way of adopting new legislation, which annulled the award; 297 misuse of legal proceedings in order to destroy the company and seize its assets; 298 revocation of a bank’s licence; 299 and dismissal of the business entity’s request for reimbursement of sums erroneously paid in respect of VAT. 300 The Court did not rule that there was a breach of the Article 1 of the First Protocol when it decided on the loss of property as a result of adverse possession, 301 288 Regent Company v. Ukraine , no. 773/03, 3 April 2008. 289 Sacilor-Lormines, cited above, and Capital Bank AD, cited above. 290 Agrokompleks, cited above. 291 Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag, cited above, and OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos, cited above. 292 Sacilor-Lormines, cited above. 293 Agrokompleks, cited above. 294 Sacilor-Lormines, cited above , and Agrokompleks, cited above. 295 Regent Company, cited above. 296 Sud Fondi srl and Others v. Italy , no. 75909/01, 20 January 2009. 297 Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece , 9 December 1994, Series a no. 301-B. 298 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos, cited above. 299 Capital Bank AD, cited above. 300 Aon Conseil and Courtage S.A. and Christian de Clarens S.A. v. France , no. 70160/01, 25 January 2007. 301 J. A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J. A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, ECHR 2007-III. 287 Anheuser-Busch Inc. [GC] , cited above.

62