NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

In its request, the association noted that it accepted that sensitive information could be deleted from the report. It also offered to reimburse the costs this entailed. The request was refused citing a lack of time and personnel. The Austrian domestic courts upheld this decision. The applicant association complained before the Court that it did not have an effective remedy in respect of its complaint under Articles 10 and 13 of the Convention. 1047 In this respect, the Court observed that the Austrian administrative court held that it was not competent to address the applicant association’s complaint. The Constitutional Court of Austria in turn also refused to hear the case, making the assumption that the case was not excluded from the administrative courts’ jurisdiction. The applicant association brought an application to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction. As a result, the Constitutional Court set aside its previous decision and ruled on the merits of the applicant association’s complaint under Article 10. The Court concluded that the fact that the outcome was not favourable for the applicant association did not detract from the effectiveness of the remedy. It therefore was satisfied that the applicant association had an effective remedy and, accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 13. The next on the list is Article 13 taken together with Article 11 of the Convention. 2.8.5 Article 13 in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention The Court found a breach of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention in the previously mentioned case of Genderdoc-M v. Moldova . 1048 The applicant here was a Moldovan non-governmental organisation, Genderdoc-M, whose object is to provide information and to assist the LGBT community. The applicant association applied to the Chişinău Municipal Council for authorisation to hold a peaceful demonstration in front of the Moldovan Parliament to encourage the adoption of laws to protect sexual minorities from discrimination. They were refused permission for the proposed demonstration, on the grounds that there was a law on the protection of national minorities already in place and that there were legal provisions which dictated which individuals had the power of legislative initiative required to promote laws. The applicant association contested the decision of the Chişinău Mayor’s Office before domestic courts, but to no avail. The applicant organisation complained under Article 13, in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention, that it did not have an effective remedy against the alleged violation of its freedom of assembly. In particular, it alleged that there was no effective procedure that would have allowed it to obtain a decision prior to the date of the planned demonstration. The Court observed that in the present case, despite the five-day time-line prescribed by Moldovan law, the applicant’s request to hold a demonstration was finally replied to a year and a half after it had been lodged. Therefore, the Court was not persuaded that the judicial remedy available to the applicant in this case could have provided 1047 VOORHOOF, D. and FATHAIG, R. Ó. The press and NGOs’ right of access to official documents under strict scrutiny of the European Court of Human Rights. URL: accessed 20 July 2015. 1048 Genderdoc-M , cited above.

195