NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

Group International, the European Network Against Racism and the European Roma Information Office, as well as to the International Federation of Human Rights. 385 NGOs participated in the proceedings before the Court as third parties in a number of other cases. For example, the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics took part in the case of I.G. and Others v Slovakia. 386 The Central Council of Jews in Germany intervened in the case of PETA Deutschland v. Germany. 387 An NGO, Article 19, participated in the case of Mouvement suisse raëlien against Switzerland. 388 In the case of McCaughey and Others v. the United Kingdom, 389 the Committee on the Administration of Justice, Northern Ireland’s leading independent human rights organisation, also submitted third-party comments. 390 Two international NGOs, Interights 391 and the International Commission of Jurists, 392 submitted their third party comments in the case of Vejdeland v. Sweden. 393 It can, therefore, be concluded that a non-governmental organisation of any kind (associations, councils, NGO projects, ect.) may participate in the capacity of an amicus curiae in proceedings before the Court. The main rule is that the intervention cannot follow any personal aim of a third party, but should bemade exclusively in the interest of the proper administration of justice. The NGOs may act individually or lodge a common submission to the Court. In the case of Jones and Others v. the United Kingdom , 394 the Redress Trust (‘Redress’), Amnesty International, ‘Interights’ and Justice wrote joint comments in the capacity of third-party interveners. In cases related to distinct matters or a specific group of people, NGOs may also take part by representing the interests of such groups. As an example, we can mention a group of persons with disabilities. In the case of Koroviny v. Russia , 395 the President granted leave to intervene as a third party in the proceedings to the European Disability Forum (EDF), the European Network of (ex-) Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (ENUSP), the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (WNUSP) and the International Disability Alliance (IDA). Rule 44 of the Rules of Court clarifies that permission to file comments or to participate in hearings is given by the President of the Chamber, who does not always have to be the President of the Court. To explain, the Convention sets up the general

Ibid. , § 9.

385

I.G. , cited above, § 5.

386

PETA Deutschland , cited above, § 5. Mouvement raëlien suisse , cited above, § 8.

387

388

389 McCaughey and Others v. the United Kingdom , no. 43098/09, 16 July 2013. 390 Committee on the Administration of Justice official web site. URL: accessed 20 July 2015. 391 Official web site of the Interights. URL: accessed 20 July 2015. 392 Official web site of the ICJ. URL: accessed 20 July 2015. 393 Vejdeland v. Sweden , no. 1813/07, 9 February 2012. 394 Jones and Others v. the United Kingdom , nos. 34356/06 and 40528/06, 14 January 2014. 395 Koroviny v. Russia , no. 31974/11, § 5, 27 February 2014.

76