NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

the Court in respect of Article 34 NGOs; therefore, the next part of this section will directly assess the combination of Articles 13 and 9 of the Convention. 2.8.3 Article 13 in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention Article 34 NGOs do not frequently invoke the combination of Articles 9 and 13 of the Convention in their applications lodged with the Court. Nevertheless, a few examples are available and will be covered further in this part. It is supposed that the main subjects of submissions of this type will be religious organisations, which are not successful in restoration of justice on national level. In the case of Biserica Adevărat Ortodoxă din Moldova and Others v. Moldova , 1040 the applicants were a few individuals and the ‘True Orthodox Church in Moldova’ (Biserica Adevărat Ortodoxă din Moldova). They alleged that the authorities’ refusal to register the Church affected their right to freedom of religion and association and that the prolonged non-enforcement of the final judgment in their favour violated their rights under Articles 6, 9, 13, 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Court observed that a church or ecclesiastical body, as such, may exercise rights on behalf of its adherents and, therefore, may be considered an applicant for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention. The Court ruled that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 9, and justified its judgment as follows. It observed that the applicants’ complaint that the refusal to register the applicant Church infringed their right to freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention was undoubtedly arguable. Therefore, they were entitled to an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 13. The applicant Church’s adherents made a number of requests to have it registered; however, their requests were never properly addressed because of the general problem of the lack of an effective mechanism to ensure compliance with a final judgment. 1041 The Court ruled that Article 34 NGOs had been denied an effective remedy in the case of Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria . 1042 In this case, the applicants, Glas Nadezhda EOOD, a single-member limited liability company, along with its only member, complained of two aspects: first, about the refusal of the competent state bodies (the State Telecommunications Commission and the National Radio and Television Committee – the NRTC) to grant a broadcasting licence for a religious radio station, and second, about the refusal of the Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria to review the merits of these decisions. They alleged that these actions had breached their rights under Articles 9, 10 and 13 of the Convention. The Court ruled that there was a breach of Article 10 because the applicants were not made aware of the basis on which the NRTC had exercised its discretion to deny a broadcasting licence. 1043 Though the applicants additionally complained under

1040 Biserica Adevărat Ortodoxă, cited above. 1041 Biserica Adevărat Ortodoxă , cited above, § 52-54. 1042 Glas Nadezhda EOOD , cited above, § 71. 1043 Ibid ., § 71.

193