CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

alla tymofeyeva CYIL 12 (2021) companies 5 as sources of information. Under certain circumstances, the ECtHR may even make a request in this respect itself. 6 Nonetheless, this does not prove the fact that public corporations bear any rights or duties under the ECHR. Taking into account the afore-mentioned considerations, the author will focus first, on the role of public corporations as the applicants in the proceedings before the ECtHR. If it can be proven that public corporations are entitled to lodge a complaint with this court, it may confirm the fact that they possess certain rights and duties under an international treaty, the ECHR and could be seen as separate subjects of international law. On the other hand, it is necessary to verify the theory of the comprising of activities of public corporations by the notion ‘the state’. If it can be proven that the acts of public corporations are attributable to the state concerned, it may signify that these entities do not have a separate legal standing under the ECHR. This would mean that they act as state agents representing the interests of the government and should be covered by the notion ‘the state’ for the purposes of the public international law. The objective of this paper is to reflect on the position of public corporations under the provisions of the ECHR by also considering the idea of their subjectivity in international law. In order to reach this goal, the author will focus primarily on a definition of the term ‘public corporation’ from a legal point of view and propose a definition for the purposes of the current studies. An analysis of the case-law of the ECtHR demonstrates that public corporations appear in the judgments and decision of the ECtHR in two situations. First, they apply to the ECtHR as the victims of human rights violations and secondly, public corporations are mentioned by the ECtHR in its jurisprudence when it deals with attribution of certain acts to states. Given this, in the next two parts of the paper the author will evaluate the legal standing of public corporations as applicants based on the provisions of Article 34 of the ECHR and subsequently will discuss the issue of the activities of public corporations as the state agents in the meaning of Articles 4, 5, and 8 of the ARSIWA. 1. Definition of the term ‘public corporation’ Explanatory (monolingual) dictionaries do not agree on a single meaning of the term ‘public corporation’. Nonetheless, from an analysis of the concepts proposed it is possible to derive two main meanings: 1) a corporation that is owned and operated by a government and established for the administration of certain public functions; 2) a large private corporation with many shares, which are sold to the public or traded on a stock exchange. The first of the above-mentioned meanings is more relevant in the context of the present research. Legal glossaries specify that a public corporation is “an entity that is created by the state to carry out public missions and services. In order to carry out these public missions and services, a public corporation participates in activities or provides services that are also provided by private enterprise. A public corporation is granted increased operating flexibility in order to best ensure its success, while retaining principles of public accountability and 5 See e.g., JKP Vodovod Kraljevo v. Serbia , nos. 57691/09 and 19719/10, 1, § 18, 16 October 2018. 6 E.g., under Rule A5 (Convocation of witnesses, experts and of other persons to proceedings before a delegation) of the Rules of Court as of 1 January 2020.

258