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

business premises (see Halford , cited above, p. 1016, § 44; Aalmoes and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16269/02, 25 November 2004; and Weber and Saravia , cited above, § 77, with further references). The former Commission has already held, in circumstances identical to those of the present case, that applicants who are legal persons may fear that they are subjected to secret surveillance. It has accordingly accepted that they may claim to be victims (see Mersch and Others v. Luxembourg , nos. 10439‑41/83, 10452/83 and 10512/83 and 10513/83, Commission decision of 10 May 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 43, p. 34, at pp. 113‑14). The applicant association is therefore entitled to the protection afforded by Article 8. 61. Furthermore, unlike the situation obtaining in the cases of Scientology Kirche Deutschland (cited above) and Herbecq and Association “Ligue des droits de l’homme” v. Belgium (nos. 32200/96 and 32201/96, Commission decision of 14 January 1998, DR 92‑A, p. 92), the Article 8 rights in issue in the present case are those of the applicant association, not of its members. There is therefore a sufficiently direct link between the association as such and the alleged breaches of the Convention. It follows that it can claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.” In general, the Convention does not go so far as to protect the right of legal persons to existence under Article 2 of the Convention. A legal person is not a human being and therefore, biologically being an artificial subject, it cannot die. Unfair dissolution of a political party, for example, may be complained of on the basis of Articles 11 and 6 of the Convention, not under Article 2. We also know that a legal person may not lodge a complaint to the Court alleging, for example, death of its director, as far as the Court accepts only the application for the direct victims. The victim status is a basic requirement to seek for protection on the basis of the Convention. In accordance with the case-law of the Court, the legal person cannot complain about the violation of the rights of its members, provided that those rights have individual character. Similarly, members of a legal person cannot complain about the violation of the rights of the organisation even if the statutory body granted them a power of attorney to represent its interests. Legal persons do not have the status of the victim, unless they have proved a direct effect of the measures concerning its members on its activities . In the case of Nassau Verzekering Maatschappij NV v. the Netherlands, the Court stated that the applicant company does not have the status of victim, and therefore dismissed the application ratione personae . In the present case the applicant company represented the interests of H. under the power of attorney and claimed before the Court a violation of the right of access to court under Article 6 of the Convention complaining that H. was not able invoke the right to appeal. The Court noted that the company Nassau Verzekering Maatschappij NV not only was never involved in the proceedings before domestic courts but even its interests were not directly affected by the proceedings in question. Likewise, in the case of Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania , the application to the Court was submitted by three Romanian nationals, Mr Teodor Mărieş, Mr Nicolae Vlase and Mrs Elena Vlase, and by the Association “21 December 1989”, a legal entity which is registered under Romanian law. However, only as natural persons could they complain of the death of their son, Nicuşor Vlase, at the end of the December 1989 following the use of lethal force by State agents. The situation has changed in July 2014 when the Court issued its judgment in the case of Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania . The case originated in an application lodged with the Court by a Romanian non-governmental organisation, the Centre for Legal Resources (“the CLR”), on behalf of Mr Valentin Câmpeanu, on 2 October 2008. The case concerned failure of Romania to provide adequate care for an HIV positive mental patient. The CLT did not have any power of attorney from Mr Câmpeanu. Therefore, the Romanian government contended that the CLR did not have locus standi to lodge the present application on behalf of the late Valentin Câmpeanu. The Court dismissed the Government’s preliminary objection that the CLR had no standing to lodge the application. It accepted that the CLR could not be regarded as a victim of the alleged Convention violations as Mr Câmpeanu was indisputably the direct victim while the CLR had

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION

125