NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

example, the refusal to register an organisation. This right is of a special interest in view of the fact that it is unclear whether the right to establish an organisation is an individual or a collective right, in other words, whether an individual or a legal person is a direct victim of a refusal to set up an Article 34 NGO. The practice of the Court shows that it does not have a unified approach concerning victim status in these cases. In some judgments, it considered natural persons who pursued an aim to establish an Article 34 NGO to be a victim of a violation of the Convention. 1003 In a number of other cases, with regard to the fact that the idea of Article 34 NGOs also comprises legal persons without official status, 1004 non-governmental organisations have been regarded as victims of breaches of the right to freedom of association. These NGOs only had an intention to be registered, but were deprived of such possibility due to procedural obstacles. 1005 In one of the newest cases of the Court, Association of Victims of Romanian Judges and Others v. Romania, 1006 an application was lodged with the Court by the Association of Victims of Romanian Judges (Asociaţia Victimelor Magistraţilor din România) and nine Romanian nationals, who were its founders according to its Articles of Association. 1007 All of the applicants together alleged that the refusal by the domestic courts to register the applicant association was unjustified and breached their right to freedom of association under Article 11 of the Convention. The refusal of the Bucharest District Court was based on the ground that the association’s Articles stated an intention to declare certain court rulings to be unfair. For example, the articles held the objectives “to monitor the activity of the Romanian justice system with the aim of reporting to the relevant authorities any injustice, irregularities or illegalities committed by Romanian judges.” The articlse also sought “to present in the media any cases of manifest unfairness or bias in the application of the law, in so far as the public has the right to be aware of any negative aspects of the activities of the Romanian justice system”. The national courts held that this would encourage non compliance with court judgments and represent an attack on state power. A domestic appeal of the decision was dismissed. The Court observed that in the present case the articles of the applicant association did not contain any indication that it had the aim of setting up a structure designed to encroach on existing state institutions. On the contrary, the relevant clauses referred to the objective of promoting cooperation between the association’s members and those authorised by law to protect their rights and interests. What’s more, the Court noted that the domestic law prohibits only those organisations demonstrating goals contrary to public order. For these reasons, the Court held that the arguments invoked by the authorities for refusing registration of the applicant association were not 1003 Koretskyy, cited above; Linkov , cited above, and Ramazanova, cited above (repeated failure to issue a definitive decision amounted to a de facto refusal to register). 1004 These subjects had no legal personality as far as they were not officially set up under the legislation. 1005 The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden , cited above; Association of Victims of Romanian Judges, cited above, and Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia , no. 18147/02, 5 April 2007. 1006 Association of Victims of Romanian Judge, cited above. 1007 See, Guidelines on Freedom of Association . OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions, 2015 (online). URL: accessed 20 July 2015.

185