NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

their right to respect for private and family life had been breached by telephone calls, faxes and letters from K. and R. and by the bailiff, who had delivered court summons in person. The Court did not separately address the complaints from individuals and the legal person, but merely concluded that these complaints did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the invoked Article of the Convention. Another case that was submitted by a legal and a natural person alleging a violation of Article 8 is Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey . 746 The applicants in the present case were a private company and the director and major shareholder of the company. They alleged that the deprivation of their property rights in respect of the plots located in the northern part of Cyprus constituted violations of Articles 1, 8 and 14 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4. In its admissibility decision, the Court concluded that the application raised serious questions of fact and law that were to be examined on the merits. It nevertheless did not rule on the issue since the parties came to a friendly settlement and the case was struck off the list. 747 There was a similar situation in the case of Angoulos Estate Ltd v. Turkey. 748 In some cases, the Court decided that it was not necessary to reach any separate conclusion regarding the complaints under Article 8 in view of its finding of a violation of another Article the Convention. 749 This was the situation in the case of Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom , 750 where the Court found a breach of the rights of access to court (Article 6 of the Convention) and refused to examine the case under Article 8 separately. 2.4.3 Summarisation The analysed case-law of the Court shows that, to a very limited extent, Article 8 of the Convention is among those provisions that are applicable to Article 34 NGOs. Primarily, the Commission concluded that legal entities did not possess victim status under Article 8 of the Convention. Later on the situation changed and nowadays a new Court in a number of cases has ruled that the rights of a legal person under this Article had been violated. The rights under Article 8 may be divided into four main groups: 1) right to respect for private life; 2) right to respect for family life; 3) right to respect for ‘home’; and 4) right to respect for correspondence. Though the title of the Article at issue is ‘Respect for private and family life’, the practice shows that the first and second guarantees are not applicable to Article 34 NGOs at the moment. The Court, in its judgments in respect to legal persons, has only found a breach of the rights to ‘home’ 746 EugeniaMichaelidou Developments Ltd andMichael Tymvios v. Turkey (dec.), no. 16163/90, 8 June 1999. 747 Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey (just satisfaction-friendly settlement), no. 16163/90, § 17, 22 April 2008. 748 Angoulos Estate Ltd v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36115/03, 9 February 2010. 749 Centre for Legal Resources [GC], cited above, § 155. 750 Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom , 10 July 1998, § 87, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV.

138