NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

a public authority. According to the Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 12 1290 on Article 1 of this Protocol, the scope of protection of that provision concerns four categories of cases, in particular, where a person is discriminated against: “i. in the enjoyment of any right specifically granted to an individual under national law; ii. in the enjoyment of a right which may be inferred from a clear obligation of a public authority under national law, that is, where a public authority is under an obligation under national law to behave in a particular manner; iii. by a public authority in the exercise of discretionary power (for example, granting certain subsidies); iv. by any other act or omission by a public authority (for example, the behaviour of law enforcement officers when controlling a riot).” 1291 The Explanatory Report further clarifies that: “… it was considered unnecessary to specify which of these four elements are covered by the first paragraph of Article 1 and which by the second. The two paragraphs are complementary and their combined effect is that all four elements are covered by Article 1. It should also be borne in mind that the distinctions between the respective categories i-iv are not clear-cut and that domestic legal systems may have different approaches as to which case comes under which category.” 1292 In view of the small number of member states that recognise the rights under Protocol No. 12, the case-law of the Court in this respect is also limited. Before 2015, the Court rendered only a few judgments involving Article 1 of Protocol No. 12. 1293 Luckily, one of them concerns an Article 34 NGO. This was the case of Savez crkava “Riječ života” and Others v. Croatia. 1294 In its judgment in this case, the Court came to the conclusion that Protocol No. 12 was applicable, but there was no need for a separate examination: “114. The Court has already found that the difference in treatment between the applicant churches and those religious communities which had concluded agreements on issues of common interest with the Government of Croatia and were therefore entitled to provide religious education in public schools and nurseries and to have religious marriages they performed recognised by the State amounted to discrimination in breach of Article 14 taken together with Article 9 of the Convention (see paragraphs 92-93 above). 115. Having regard to that finding, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately whether, in this case, there has also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12

1290 Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 12 to the Convention. URL: accessed 20 July 2015.

1291 Para. 22 of the Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 12, cited above. 1292 Para. 23 of the Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 12, cited above.

1293 Zornić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 3681/06, 15 July 2014; Maktouf and Damjanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Sejdić and Finci [GC], cited above, and Savez crkava “Riječ života”, cited above. 1294 Savez crkava “Riječ života”, cited above.

252