NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

finding that there was no foundation for the applicants’ assertion, as the basis on which the amounts recovered had been calculated had not been made sufficiently clear. The applicants then appealed to the Conseil d’Etat, which dismissed the appeal, finding that the appeal court had replied adequately to the grounds of appeal submitted to it and had not committed any error of law. Relying, inter alia , on Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, the applicants complained before the Court that the Conseil d’Etat had given precedence to the stability of the milk market over the protection of their rights. They considered that the politically and economically sensitive nature of the issue had prevented them, in a discriminatory manner, from enjoying the guarantees of access to a court afforded to other litigants. They also considered that France’s decision to opt for ‘Formula B’ placed them at a disadvantage compared with purchasers in other member states of the then European Community which had opted for ‘Formula A’. In a response, the Court pointed out that it had no jurisdiction to examine this complaint under Protocol No. 12, because France had not ratified that Protocol. The other inadmissible complaint was submitted in the case of Imobilije Marketing D.O.O. and Ivan Debelić v. Croatia . 1297 The first applicant here was Imobilije Marketing d.o.o., a limited liability company incorporated under Croatian law. The second applicant was Mr Ivan Debelić. The applicants concluded a lease agreement with Mrs K. K., whereby they as lessors leased their business premises to her for a period of five years. In return, Mrs K.K. as a lessee was obliged to pay them rent. When she did not pay the whole amount, the applicants instituted enforcement proceedings before the Rab Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Rabu ) in an attempt to collect the unpaid amounts. Before the Court, the applicants complained that the length of the non-contentious proceedings had been excessively long. They relied, inter alia , on Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 thereto, without further substantiating these complaints. Since the applicant did not provide the Court with any specific explanations on the issue, the Court considered the claims to be wholly unsubstantiated. They were therefore declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded and had been rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. Protocol No. 12 was the last in the list of provisions under which material rights set forth in the Convention may be bestowed on Article 34 NGOs. The next chapter will contemplate the specific issue, which may concern the applicant non-governmental organisations, that arises when the Court rules that there has been a violation of the Convention. This is the matter of just satisfaction. In accordance with Article 41 of the Convention, if the national law of the member state concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court may afford just satisfaction to the applicant. Nonetheless, it does not mean that a right to such compensation exists. An Article 34 NGO may obtain, by the will of the Court, the redress on certain conditions, which will be the described in the next Chapter.

1297 Imobilije Marketing D.O.O. and Ivan Debelić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 23060/07, 3 May 2011.

254