NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was infringed. 593 As was already mentioned, the autonomous Convention meaning of the word ‘tribunal’ includes not only courts of general jurisdiction and constitutional courts, but also other bodies that fulfil judicial functions. In the case of Družstevní záložna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic , 594 the Court ruled that the Office for the Supervision of Credit Unions (‘OSCU’), the authority which made a decision in the applicant’s case, could not be deemed to be an independent and impartial tribunal conforming to the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The OSCU placed the applicant credit union in receivership for allegedly engaging in activities outside its remit without authorisation. It also made an audit of the credit union’s economic activities. In accordance with Czech legislation, the objections on the subject had to be made by an OSCU employee. The Czech Ministry of Finance declined to review the audit and the facts as assessed by the OSCU were not reviewable by any other administrative authority. The OSCU had been managed by a director who had been appointed and removed from office by the Czech Minister of Finance. Therefore, it was an authority subordinate to and dependent on the Ministry. Such a situation led to the conclusion that Article 6 of the Convention was infringed. 595 The independence and impartiality of the judiciary was also questioned in a number of other cases originating in applications submitted by Article 34 NGOs. 596 Now we will focus on the next group of the rights of these subjects under Article 6 of the Convention, namely equality of arms. 2.2.4 Equality of arms In the course of judicial proceedings, the principle of ‘equality of arms’ must be observed. 597 This principle is breached when a party is prevented from replying to written submissions to the national court made by counsel for the counterparty. In the case of Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 598 the applicant, a limited liability company, instituted civil proceedings against a bank to prove that there was an oral agreement between it and the bank on extending certain credit facilities. Only two persons had been present at the meeting where the agreement had allegedly been reached, one person for the applicant and one person representing the bank. Nevertheless, only the person representing the bank had been allowed by the national court to be heard as a witness, while the applicant company had been denied the possibility of calling the person who had represented it. The Court observed that during the relevant negotiations the two representatives acted on equally. Therefore, it was difficult to see why they should not both have been allowed to give testimony. 593 GOMIEN, 2005, cited above, p. 54. 594 Družstevní záložna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic , no. 72034/01, § 108, 31 July 2008. 595 International Corporate Rescue. Chase Cambria Company (Publishing) Ltd., 2009, ISSN: 1572-4638, p. 371. 596 HIT d.d. Nova Gorica v. Slovenia , no. 50996/08, § 42, 5 June 2014 and Julius Kloiber Schlachthof GmbH and Others v. Austria , nos. 21565/07, 21572/07, 21575/07 and 21580/07, § 34, 4 April 2013. 597 HARRIS, 2009, cited above, p. 251. 598 Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands , 27 October 1993, Series a no. 274.

111