NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

de facto representative of Mr Câmpeanu” 228 as far as this approach is consonant with the right to judicial review under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in the case of ‘persons of unsound mind’. Furthermore, in the exceptional circumstances in view of the serious nature of the allegations presented, CLR must obtain the position of a de facto representative of Mr Câmpeanu, notwithstanding the fact that it had no power of attorney. The opposite decision would lead to a situation in which serious allegations of violations of the Convention are never examined at an international level. Accordingly, the respondent states might escape accountability under the Convention as a result of the state’s own failure to appoint a legal representative, contrary to the requirement of national law. In the present case, the Court introduced the new concept of de facto representative. Although in the case of Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania this concept , was considered in relation to the locus standi of the applicant, it is closely connected with the concept of ‘victim’. Potential victim The Practical guide on admissibility criteria elaborated by the Court contains also a description of the term ‘potential victim’. The Court stated that ‘on a case-by case basis the Court has accepted applications from ‘potential’ victims, that is, from persons who could not complain of a direct violation’. 229 This sentence clearly shows that the concept of a ‘potential victim’ is not the same as a idea of a ‘direct victim’, however it does not give us a clear explanation on the issue. A potential victim is a subject that is has a fear of becoming a victim of a national law in the future, particularly when such law concerns, for example, secrete surveillance or sets forth the possibility to expel a group of people. 230 The term ‘potential victim’ should also not be confused with ‘indirect victim’. The latter, as described above, refers to persons who have suffered indirect negative consequences of a state act or omission. In order for applicant NGOs to be able to claim to be a victim, they must produce reasonable and convincing evidence of the likelihood that a violation affecting them personally will occur. Mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient in this respect. 231 The Court accepted the idea of a ‘potential victim’ in cases where the applicant was not in a position to demonstrate that the legislation he complained of had actually been applied to him because of the secret nature of the measures the legislation authorised. 232 Specifically, this occurred where a law punishing homosexual acts was likely to be applied to a certain category of the population, to which the applicant belonged. 233 The Court also recognised that in a situation where the forced removal of aliens had already been ordered, but not yet carried out, and enforcement of the

228 Ibid. § 114. 229 Bringing a case to the European Court of Human Rights, 2011, cited above, p. 12. 230 HUBÁLKOVÁ, E. Řízení… , 2010, cited above, p. 42. 231 Monnat v. Switzerland , no. 73604/01, §§ 31-32, ECHR 2006-X. 232 Klass and Others v. Germany , 6 September 1978, § 36, Series a no. 28. 233 Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom , 22 October 1981, § 63, Series a no. 45.

51