NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

described above, namely that only an NGO, which is involved in the dispute itself and not through its representatives, may claim to be a direct victim. However, this criterion should not be applied in a mechanical and inflexible way. The case of Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria 216 also deserves attention in relation to clarification of the direct victim status. The case originated in an application against the Republic of Bulgaria by Glas Nadezhda EOOD, asingle-member limited liability company, and its sole member and manager, Mr Anatoliy Elenkov, a Bulgarian national (‘the applicants’). While the rights of both applicants were closely connected, the Court decided not to acknowledge the victim status of natural and legal persons together. It noted that since it was the applicant company, Glas Nadezhda EOOD, who applied for and was denied a licence, its victim status was not disputable. The question arose whether the second applicant, Mr Elenkov, a sole member and manager of the applicant company, could himself claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. The Court observed that in the case of Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland , 217 it found that the sole shareholder and statutory representative of a company could also be considered a victim with regards to a ban on broadcasting. Consequently, since the case at hand was indistinguishable in this respect, it recognised that Mr Elenkov could also claim to be a victim of a violation. The case confirms that if an NGO was set up by one founder only, both the individual and the legal person may obtain victim status under the Convention. Based on this case, it is possible to conclude that, if a situation is the opposite, namely, the application was introduced by a founder in respect of his rights concerning activities of an NGO, then in theory this NGO may also be seen as a direct victim of the Convention breach. Indirect victim The notion of ‘indirect victim’ includes those who have a personal and specific link with the direct victim. For example, the Court admitted an application from the victim’s wife under Article 2 of the Convention (right to life) in the case of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom , 218 and from a dead man’s nephew in the case of Yaşa v. Turkey . 219 In cases where the alleged violation of the Convention was not closely linked to disappearances or deaths giving rise to issues under Article 2, the Court’s approach has been more restrictive. In its decision in the case of Sanles Sanles v. Spain, 220 the Court held that the applicant may claim to have been very affected by the death of a person despite the lack of close family ties. Nonetheless, it explained that the rights under Articles 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 14 of the Convention belong to the category of non-transferable rights. In the case of Fairfield v. the United Kingdom , the Court reached the same conclusion in respect of complaints brought under 216 Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria , no. 14134/02, § 71, 11 October 2007. 217 Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland , 28 March 1990, § 21, Series a no. 173. 218 McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom , 27 September 1995, Series a no. 324. 219 Yaşa v. Turkey , 2 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI. 220 Sanles Sanles v. Spain (dec.), no. 48335/99, ECHR 2000-XI.

49