NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

The case of Amat-G Ltd and Mebaghishvili v. Georgia 1054 presents a similar example. A limited liability company, called Amat-G, lodged complaints with the Court, inter alia, under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. For a period of a few years, the applicant company supplied the Georgian Ministry of Defence with various types of fish products; however, it did not pay for all of them. The regional court allowed the applicants’ action against the ministry for breach of contract, and ordered it to pay the applicant company compensation. Nonetheless, this judgment was not enforced. The Court again ruled that there had been an infringement of these Articles of the Convention as the company lacked effective remedy. 1055 The applicant in the case of Stockholms Försäkrings- och Skadeståndsjuridik AB v. Sweden , 1056 Stockholms Försäkrings- och Skadeståndsjuridik AB (formerly Stockholms Modegarn AB), is a Swedish limited liability company in Stockholm. It was declared bankrupt. This declaration was ultimately quashed by the Swedish Supreme Court. The applicant company’s net assets were subsequently appropriated to cover part of the official receiver’s fee and it was unable to challenge that measure before the courts. It complained before the Court of breaches of the following provisions: Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of its liability to pay part of the receiver’s fee; Article 6 because there had been no court determination of that liability; and Article 13 in that it had no effective remedy for the determination of the violations of its rights under the Convention. The Court found that, as the applicant company had been erroneously declared bankrupt, the obligation on it to pay part of the bankruptcy costs had been wholly unjustifiable. It concluded unanimously that the company had been deprived of its possessions pursuant to a clear rule of domestic law but that the deprivation, although of only a limited amount, had not been proportionate to the public interest in this case. The Court concluded that there had been a breach of Article 13 because the applicant company had no remedy under Swedish law for its complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 1057 In the case of British-American Tobacco Company Ltd v. the Netherlands , the applicant company also complained of a breach of Article 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Court, finding a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, ruled that requirements of Article 13 are less strict than, and here absorbed by, those of Article 6 § 1. Therefore, it decided not to deal with the other complaints. The Court came to the same conclusion in its judgment in the case of Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden . 1058 In most of their applications, Article 34 NGOs allege a breach of Article 13 of the Convention in combination with many provisions of the Convention itself and its Protocols. The author was not able to find any case where the Court would find a violation of this Article with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 or Articles 2, 3 and 4

1054 Amat-G Ltd, cited above. 1055 Ibid ., § 54. 1056 Stockholms Försäkrings- och Skadeståndsjuridik AB v. Sweden , no. 38993/97, 16 September 2003. 1057 Ibid ., § 71. 1058 Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden , cited above.

197