NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

to the Convention (see Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 51, ECHR 2009-…).” 1295 The applicants in the present case were Savez crkava “Riječ života” (Union of Churches “The Word of Life”), Crkva cjelovitog evanđelja (Church of the Full Gospel) and Protestantska reformirana kršćanska crkva u Republici Hrvatskoj (Protestant Reformed Christian Church in the Republic of Croatia) (‘the applicant churches’), religious communities incorporated under Croatian law. The complaints of the applicant churches, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, concerned their inability to provide religious education in schools and to conclude officially recognised religious marriages in Croatia. All of the applicant churches were of a Reformist denomination. They sought to conclude an agreement with the Croatian government regulating their relations with the state. Without such an agreement, they were unable, inter alia , to provide religious education in public schools and nurseries, have their celebrated religious marriages recognised by the state, or provide pastoral care in health and social-welfare institutions and prisons. The authorities informed the applicants that they did not fulfil the prescribed criteria for the conclusion of such an agreement. In particular, they had not been present on Croatian territory since 1941 and did not have the required 6,000 adherents. According to national legislation, the state enjoyed discretion in deciding whether or not to conclude an agreement with a religious community enabling it to provide religious education and to have religious marriages it celebrated officially recognised. Therefore, the applicant churches’ complaint in this respect did not concern ‘rights specifically granted to them under national law’. Nonetheless, the Court considered these complaints to fall within the third category specified by the Explanatory Report on Protocol No. 12 as they concerned alleged discrimination “by a public authority in the exercise of discretionary power”. Consequently, it concluded that Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 was applicable in the present case. However, in the end, as it was said before, the Court came to the conclusion that there was no need to examine the complaint under this Article. Apart from the above-mentioned judgment, the Court ruled on Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention in a number of its decisions relating to Article 34 NGOs. The applicants in the case of Coopérative des agriculteurs de la Mayenne and Coopérative laitière Maine-Anjou v. France 1296 were two farm cooperatives. The function of one was to collect milk and milk derivatives supplied by the farmers belonging to the cooperative. The second applicant was the legal entity that took over the first applicant’s milk collection operations. Following an inspection by the National Dairy Board (‘Onilait’), aimed in particular at checking that the first applicant’s activities were compatible with the law, the first applicant was informed that it had exceeded its milk production quotas. Onilait therefore gave them notice to pay substantial sums in over-production levies. The applicants asked the administrative courts to set aside this decision. These courts, however, rejected their application, 1295 Ibid. , §§ 114-115. 1296 Coopérative des agriculteurs de la Mayenne and Coopérative laitière Maine-Anjou v. France (dec.), no. 16931/04, ECHR 2006-XV.

253