NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

From the table above we can see that Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Turkey did not ratify Protocol No. 7, and, consequently, in these countries the guarantees mentioned in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Protocol No. 7 are not applicable to Article 34 NGOs. Regarding, in particular, the situation in Germany, there are presumptions that because of the Siemens scandal, German authorities will rethink their opposition to corporate criminal liability. 1248 That case concerned the bribery by the German engineering company Siemens (which paid billions in bribes to government officials in Asia, Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America to secure public works contracts). 1249 There is also the second group of the CoE member states where legal persons will not enjoy protection, and these are those countries whose national legislation does not contain provisions on corporate criminal liability. Among them are again Germany and Turkey, and then Russia, Greece and Armenia. Nevertheless, taking into account an autonomous meaning of the term ‘criminal’ in the practice of the Court, these states may be held liable for an infringement of Protocol No. 7 in some circumstances. In addition, Russia already has a draft law on corporate criminal liability. 1250 From the point of view of international law, a few countries that do not possess domestic laws on the criminal liability of legal entities could theoretically be punished for violating Protocol No. 7 on the basis of their obligations under international treaties. These are the treaties that envisage corporate criminal liability and are binding on the parties to such instruments. A good example is the previously mentioned Convention No. 173. 1251 From the above-mentioned states, only Germany is not a party to this convention. Another illustration is Convention No. 198, 1252 which in Article 10 also foresees corporate criminal liability; however, due to a relatively small number of ratifications 1253 in comparison with the previous convention, it is less important. Nonetheless, this convention gives us information on other states, for instance San Marino, that are not parties to the treaty on corruption. In addition, it confirms the fact that Germany is not bound by the most important European agreements concerning liability of legal persons under criminal law. 1248 SUN BEALE, S. A Response …, cited above, p. 1505. 1249 Eight Former Senior Executives and Agents of Siemens Charged in Alleged $100 Million Foreign Bribe Scheme. Tuesday, December 13, 2011. URL: accessed 21 June 2015. 1250 In March 2015, the Russian parliament have received a draft law on criminal liablity of legal persons. See accessed 21 June 2015. 1251 Article 18 of the Convention states that “Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to ensure that legal persons can be held liable for the criminal offences of active bribery, trading in influence and money laundering established in accordance with this Convention…”. 1252 Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism, cited above. 1253 26 ratifications on 20 July 2015. For details see accessed 20 July 2015.

239