EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION / Alla Tymofeyeva (ed.)

Demokratik Kitle Partisi and Elçi v. Turkey , no. 51290/99, 3 May 2007, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey , 30 January 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, Socialist Party of Turkey (STP) and Others v. Turkey , no. 26482/95, 12 Novem- ber 2003, Republican Party of Russia v. Russia , no. 12976/07, 12 April 2011. • Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Examples of the cases: Sylenok and Tekhnoser- vis-Plus v. Ukraine , no. 20988/02, 9 December 2010, Amat-G Ltd and Mebaghishvili v. Georgia , no. 2507/03, ECHR 2005-VIII and Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria , no. 62540/00, 28 June 2007; • Article 14 and Protocol No. 12 to the Convention (right not to be discriminated against). Examples of the cases: Savez crkava “Riječ života” and Others v. Croatia , no. 7798/08, 9 December 2010; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. the United Kingdom , no. 7552/09, 4 March 2014 and Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova , no. 45701/99, ECHR 2001-XII. • Article 1 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions). Examples of the cases: Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, ECHR 2012; Agrokompleks v. Ukraine, no. 23465/03, 6 October 2011 and OAO Neft- yanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia , no. 14902/04, 20 September 2011; • Article 3 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (the rights to free elections). Examples of the cases: Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v. Russia , nos. 55066/00 and 55638/00, 11 January 2007. If under national law a legal person may be responsible for committing a criminal offense, it will enjoy also guarantees under Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. Moreover, the notion “criminal” has an autonomous meaning under the case law of the Court. The national legislation of the member states is certainly relevant, but it provides only a starting point in ascertaining whether at any time a person was “charged with a criminal offence”. The assessment by the Court of the applicability of the criminal aspect to a particular case is based on the so called Engel test and includes three elements: (1) classification in domestic law, (2) the nature of the offence, and (3) the severity of the penalty that the person concerned risks incurring. In view of this, some national administrative and disciplinary proceedings may be seen as “criminal” procedures for the purposes of the Convention. Therefore, the guarantees set forth by Protocol No. 7 concerning “criminal” proceedings can be applicable to legal persons in all the member states of the CoE , no matter whether the legislation on criminal liability of legal persons was adopted there or not. These guarantees may be found in the following Articles of this Protocol to the Convention: • Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters). See for example, Sigl- firðingur ehf v. Iceland (friendly settlement), no. 34142/96, 30 May 2000. • Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 (right to compensation for wrongful conviction). The Article was alleged by the applicant in the case of Marpa Zeeland B.V. and Metal Welding B.V. v. the Netherlands , no. 46300/99, ECHR 2004-X (extracts). • Article 4 Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice). See the cases Synnelius and Edsbergs Taxi AB v. Sweden (dec.), no. 44298/02, 17 June 2008, K.S. and K.S. AG v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 19117/91, 12 January 1994, Saarekallas OÜ and Others v. Estonia (dec.), no. 11548/04, 15 May 2006. In some cases, the Court also operated with Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention as to legal persons ( Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, ECHR 2003-II, Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey , 25 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey , 30 January 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, Fazilet Partisi and Kutan

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION

123