CYIL vol. 11 (2020)

ALLA TYMOFEYEVA CYIL 11 (2020) The research made by the author on the indirect obligations of business entities 20 confirms that currently there is the ECtHR case-law relating to the indirect human rights obligations of business entities with respect to Article 2 (right to life), 21 Article 3 (prohibition of torture), 22 Article 4 (prohibition of slavery), 23 Article 5 (liberty and security), 24 Article 8 (private and family life), 25 Article 9 (right to manifest religion), 26 Article 10 (freedom of expression), 27 Article 11 (freedom of association), 28 and Article 14 (non-discrimination) 29 of the ECHR. The study did not include the Protocols to the ECHR. However, it is absolutely clear that the indirect obligations of businesses may appear based on a number of their provisions, e.g. an infringement of the right to property as foreseen by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR. 30 The next part of the paper will focus on the legal standing of business entities from the perspective of the UDHR. The research question is whether this document permits businesses to enjoy both roles in question, the human rights holder and the human rights obligator. It is of particular interest giving the non-binding nature of the UDHR and a questionable position of the rights and duties under this document. 2. Business entities under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights A close reading of the Universal Declaration reveals no references to business entities. Therefore, it is unclear, if these entities have any rights or duties with respect to the freedoms enshrined in the UDHR. However, it is a well-established fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was codified through the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both of 1966. Collectively, all three documents are known as the International Bill of Human Rights (IBHR). Therefore, we may examine the legal standing of businesses based on this international bill as a whole. The UDHR does not provide for any complaint mechanisms, which results in absense of case-law on the subject. The ICCPR and the ICESCR envisage such a possibility; consequently, the research will concentrate on the machinery of these two instruments belonging to the IBHR system. According to Article 2 of the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, 31 only individuals have the right to submit a communication. Therefore, communications originating from business 20 TYMOFEYEVA, Alla. Indirect Obligations of Business Entities under the European Convention on Human Rights. In Czech Yearbook of Public and Private International Law, Vol. 8. Prague: Czech Society of International Law, 2017, pp. 291-305. 21 Öneryıldız v. Turkey (App. No. 48939/99), ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Judgment of 30 November 2004. 22 O’Keeffe v. Ireland (App. No. 35810/09), ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Judgment of 28 January 2014, para. 169. 23 Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia (App. No. 25965/04), ECtHR, Judgment of 7 January 2010, para. 298. 26 Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom (App. Nos. 48420/10 and 3 others), ECtHR, Judgment of 15 January 2013. 27 VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland (App. No. 24699/94), ECtHR, Judgment of 28 June 2001. 28 Sørensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (App. Nos. 52562/99 and 52620/99), ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Judgment of 11 January 2006. 24 Storck v. Germany (App. No. 61603/00), ECtHR, Judgment of 16 June 2005, para. 108. 25 López Ostra v. Spain (App. No. 16798/90), ECtHR, Judgment of 9 December 1994.

29 Danilenkov and Others v. Russia (App. No. 67336/01), ECtHR, Judgment of 30 July 2009. 30 Fuklev v. Ukraine (App. No. 71186/01), ECtHR, Judgment of 7 June 2005, para. 91.

31 Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 9 // United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171.

64