CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

alla tymofeyeva CYIL 12 (2021) synonymous to public corporations. Unfortunately, none of them provide for any detailed explanation of the term at issue. Based upon the previous analysis, the author proposes the following definition of the term ‘public corporation’ for the purpose of the current study. A public corporation is an entity created by the state to exercise various functions of governmental authority, which participates in activities that are also conducted by private companies. Under certain circumstances the conduct of public corporations may be attributable to the states invoking their responsibility. The list of public corporations includes local and national territorial authorities, state-owned commercial companies, national radio and tele broadcasters, public schools, and many others. The research shows that not all public corporations are entitled to bring a case before the ECtHR. The question arises as to what types of public corporations that may become successful applicants before the ECtHR and what are the criteria applied to determine the right to application. 2. Public corporations as applicants before the ECtHR Articles 34 and 35 of the ECHR are the key provision that regulate the ability of a person to lodge a complaint with the ECtHR. Article 34 provides a list of the persons entitled to submit a claim to the ECtHR. Article 35 specifies the victim status, locus standi or compatibility ratione personae . According to Article 34 of the ECHR, applications may be filed to the ECtHR by three categories of persons: 1) any person, 2) non-governmental organisation, or 3) group of individuals. The French text of Article 34 of the ECHR specifies the first category of the applicants saying: “La Cour peut être saisie d’une requête par toute personne physique…” 14 This means that public corporations would fall under the category ‘non-governmental organisation’ for the purposes of Article 34 of the ECHR. Victim status is the other important condition set forth in this provision. It influences directly the locus standi of the applicant in the proceedings before the ECtHR. In determining the victim status of public corporations, the most important is compatibility ratione personae 15 as envisaged in Article 35 § 3 (a) of the ECHR. Compatibility ratione personae signifies that the alleged violation of the ECHR had been committed by a contracting state or was in some way attributable to it. If the ECtHR comes to the conclusion that a public corporation is a ‘governmental organisation’ in the sense of Article 34 of the ECHR, it determines that the state is responsible for its conduct. The application of such public corporations will be declared incompatible ratione personae under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the ECHR as the state cannot be a victim of human rights violations. If one would argue that the states are entitled to submit inter-state applications under Article 33 of the ECHR, it should be noted that states do not claim their own rights, but the human rights of their nationals. 16 v. Greece , no. 43622/98, § 9, ECHR 2001-II, Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria , no. 40825/98, § 104, 31 July 2008; Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria , 24 November 1993, § 20, Series A no. 276; Kretzschma v. Germany (dec.), no. 26907/95, 12 April 1996. 14 Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, 1950. 15 Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria updated on 28 February 2021. 16 See e.g., Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, ECHR 2001-IV.

260