CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ INDIRECT OBLIGATIONS OF BUSINESS ENTITIES UNDER THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION… in one of the Contracting Parties, and shall have a permanent residence in the territory of one of them. It means that there is a direct obligation for the representatives to possess the status of an advocate and to reside on the territory of one of the 47 states that are parties to the Convention. It is undisputed that the victims may be represented before the Court by advocates belonging to law firms set up as a business entity within the territory of the Council of Europe member states. Therefore, nothing in the text of the Convention prevents business subjects from having this type of direct obligations. In addition, Rule 45 § 3 of the Rules of Court requires the representatives to confirm their status by a written authority to act, duly signed by the applicant. This obligation may also be easily imposed on legal persons. All the aforesaid considerations suggest that even though to a very limited extent, the Convention may impose some direct obligations also on business entities . None of them, however, directly concerns the protection and respect of human rights. This article will not deal with description of different theories relating to obligations of corporate subjects stemming from international law or demonstrate these being true or false. It will focus directly on the analysis of the case-law of the Court with the aim to conclude if there exists the likelihood of addressing the concept of ‘indirect human rights obligations’ of business entities. Varieties of indirect obligations under the Convention Prior to providing descriptions of the different types of human rights duties of business entities under the Convention, let us return to the definition of ‘indirect obligations’ given in the Introduction. The indirect obligations under the Convention are the ones established by the states that ratified this international treaty with the aim to regulate business entities’ conduct. These pursue an objective to ensure compliance with the states’ obligations stemming from the Convention. This means that business entities should follow certain human rights standards in their activities, otherwise they will be penalised by a state, which would act so in order to comply with its international obligations. Analysis of the case-law of the Court indicates that it is possible to allocate three main situations concerning duties of business entities. First , when the application to the Court relates to the dispute that arose from the activity of a business entity . Although under general rule, the Court has no jurisdiction to consider applications directed against private individuals or businesses, 36 when the complaint is directed against the state authorities for non-protection of the rights envisaged in the Convention from the side of private actors, the application will be compatible ratione personae. 37 In this situation if the Courts finds a violation of the Convention, 38 it thus may require the state either to control more properly the conduct of a private commercial entity or to enact legislation which would lead to the prevention of similar disputes in the future. 39 The case of Gurgenidze v. Georgia . 40 may serve as an excellent example. This case concerned the complaints of the applicant that the information and his photograph published in the private 2.

36 Reynbakh v. Russia , no. 23405/03, § 18, 29 September 2005. 37 Bogomolova v. Russia , no. 13812/09, § 41, 20 June 2017. 38 Von Hannover v. Germany , no. 59320/00, § 80, ECHR 2004-VI. 39 Dupuis and Others v. France, no. 1914/02, 7 June 2007. 40 Gurguenidze v. Georgia , no. 71678/01, 17 October 2006.

297