NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

independence fromthe state. For example, in the caseof Transpetrol, a.s. v. Slovakia , 166 the Court dismissed the complaint of the applicant, a joint-stock company, due to the unity of its interests and the interests of the respondent government. The Court noted that it had features of both a ‘governmental’ and a ‘non-governmental organisation’. 167 On the one hand, it was a commercial joint-stock company operating exclusively under the private-law regime governed by the Slovakian Commercial Code, with no privileges or special rights or rules concerning enforcement of judgments against it. It was subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts and did not participate in the exercise of any governmental power. In the past, it had been partly owned by private entities. On the other hand, however, Slovakia was always a majority shareholder, or even the sole shareholder of the applicant company during certain periods. On account of its strategic importance for the national economy, the applicant company was excluded by law from privatisation. It was recognised under the domestic law as having the character of a ‘natural monopoly’ and had an unrivalledmarket position in Slovakia. In the end, the Court came to the conclusion that this joint-stock company did not have the right to lodge its application with the Court. 168 Determination of the applicant company’s locus standi also lays in the assessment of the overall procedural and substantive context of the application and of its underlying facts. In the previously mentioned case of Transpetrol, a.s. v. Slovakia , 169 the question of ownership of shares in the applicant company primarily concerned the rights and interests of the shareholders rather than the rights and interests of the applicant company itself. The application was lodged with the Court mainly in the interests of Slovakia. In particular, the state had joined the applicant company as an intervener for the defendant in separate proceedings involving the determination of essentially the same issues as those in the proceedings in the instant application. The Slovak government had also sought to challenge the judgments of the Slovakian Constitutional Court in two applications lodged by the Ministry of the Economy, in which the Court declared the applications inadmissible for being incompatible ratione personae . The same lawyer represented both the government in those applications and the applicant company in the instant case. All of these circumstances demonstrated the unity of interests of the applicant company and the government. Therefore, Transpetrol JSC could not be considered an NGO in the sense of Article 34 of the Convention. The case of Východoslovenská vodárenská spoločnosť, a.s. v. Slovakia 170 presented a similar situation. In this case, the Slovak government objected on the grounds that the applicant company could not be considered a ‘non-governmental organisation’ within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. They noted that the applicant company was established and operated for the purpose of complying with the municipalities’ statutory obligation. Moreover, it was owned, directed and controlled 166 Transpetrol, a.s. v. Slovakia (dec.) , no. 28502/08, 15 November 2011. 167 Ibid , § 64. 168 Ibid. 169 Transpetrol, cited above. 170 Východoslovenská vodárenská spoločnosť, a.s.v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 40265/07, 2 July 2013.

41