CYIL 2014

ALLA TYMOFEYEVA CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ Scientology of Paris v. France , 15 the Commission pointed out that, unlike Article 9, Article 8 of the Convention has more an individual than a collective character. The objective of this provision is to protect the individual, not legal persons, against arbitrary action by the public authorities. The initial approach of the Convention bodies was also confirmed in the case of Scientology Kirche Deutschland v. Germany. 16 In the present case the applicant association complained that a strong anti-Scientology campaign conducted in Germany had predictable and serious effects on the private life of its members. According to it, these effects were grossly disproportionate and destructive for the private and family lives of the persons affected and, therefore, violated Article 8 of the Convention. The Commission in the present case noted that the applicant association as such clearly cannot be a victim of the alleged violations of the rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention . It added that solely the members of the applicant association, as individuals, could claim to be victims of a violation of these rights, which by their nature are not susceptible of being exercised by an association. Moreover, even if one assumes that the applicant association represented interests of its members as alleged victims of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, it had not identified these individuals and in any event has not shown that it has received specific instructions from each of them. Consequently, this part of the application was declared incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. The above examples show that at the end of the nineties the old Commission still refused to recognise the rights of legal persons under Article 8 of the Convention. However, in the new millennium this approach has changed. 3. Development in the case-law after 2002 Turning back to the four dimensions of the rights safeguarded by this provision (private life, family life, home and correspondence), we see that later on the Court adopted a judgment extending the scope of some of them to legal persons. On 16 April 2002, in the case of Société Colas Est and Others v. France , referring to the “living instrument” principle and the dynamic interpretation of the Convention, the Court concluded that “ the time has come to hold that in certain circumstances the rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention may be construed as including the right to respect for a company’s registered office, branches or other business premises .” 17 This case was groundbreaking for legal persons seeking to protect their rights under Article 8. This development could be predicted in advance thanks to the number of judgments in respect of natural persons concerning the right to protection of one’s office from arbitrary interference by the authorities. 18 For example, in the case 15 Church of Scientology of Paris v. France (dec.), no. 19509/92, 9 January 1995. 16 Scientology Kirche Deutschland v. Germany (dec.), no. 34614/97, Commission decision of 7 April 1997, unreported. 17 Société Colas Est and Others v. France , no. 37971/97, § 41, ECHR 2002-III. 18 Niemietz v. Germany , 16 December 1992, § 30, Series A no. 251-B.

294