NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

the case of Rock Ruby Hotels Ltd v. Turkey , 1107 however, it found that taking into account the recognition of a violation under Article 1 Protocol No. 1, it was not necessary to carry out a separate examination of the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention. In the case of Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia , 1108 the applicant party alleged that the electoral processes was unfair (the government had introduced an active system of voter registration shortly before the election and excluded two electoral districts from the country-wide vote tally). As a result, the applicant had been unable to become a parliament member and, by this way, it had been discriminated against. In light of the materials in its possession, the Court, however, did not find any evidence that could arguably suggest that the alleged circumstances exclusively affected the applicant party and did not concern the other candidates standing for that election. The Court thus ruled that there was no violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. Similarly, in the case of Federación nacionalista Canaria v. Spain , 1109 the Court rejected arguments of the applicant federation of political parties. This time, however, it concluded that this part of the application was manifestly ill founded. Nor did the Court find a violation of Article 14 taken with Article 1 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the famous case of OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia . 1110 In this case, the applicant company argued that the Russian courts’ interpretation of the relevant tax laws had been selective and unique, since many other Russian companies such as Sibneft and TNK International Ltd. had also used domestic tax havens. In the next section of the book, the author will examine the rights, applicable to Article 34 NGOs, contained in the Protocols to the Convention. This division may seem redundant in light of the provisions of the Protocols envisaging that the material rights set forth there are regarded as part of the Convention itself. For example, Article 5 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, titled ‘Relationship to the Convention’, reads as follows: “As between the High Contracting Parties the provisions of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this Protocol shall be regarded as additional Articles to the Convention and all the provisions of the Convention shall apply accordingly.” 1111 We can find similar norms in Article 6 of Protocol No. 4, 1112 Article 6 of Protocol No. 6, 1113 Article 7 of Ruby Hotels Ltd v. Turkey , no. 46159/99, §§ 21-22, 22 September 2009, Skyropiia Yialias Ltd v. Turkey , no. 47884/99, §§ 22-24, 22 September 2009. 1107 Rock Ruby Hotels Ltd , cited above, § 22. 1108 Georgian Labour Party , cited above, § 143. 1109 Federación nacionalista Canaria v. Spain (dec.), no. 56618/00, ECHR 2001-VI. 1110 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos, cited above. 1111 The text of the Protocol No. 1 is available at accesed 20 July 2015. 1112 Article 6 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention: “As between the High Contracting Parties the provisions of Articles 1 to 5 of this Protocol shall be regarded as additional Articles to the Convention, and all the provisions of the Convention shall apply accordingly.” 1113 Article 6 of Protocol No. 6 to the Convention: “As between the High Contracting Parties the provisions of Articles 1 to 5 of this Protocol shall be regarded as additional Articles to the Convention, and all the provisions of the Convention shall apply accordingly.”

209