NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

measure would have exposed the persons concerned to the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the country of destination, such a person may claim to be a potential victim. 234 In the case of Fédération chrétienne des témoins de Jéhovah de France v. France, 235 the applicant association claimed to be both a direct and a potential victim of the reports and the Law no. 2001-504 of 12 June 2001. The impugned law provided for the possibility of dissolving sects, but such a measure could be ordered only by the courts when there have been final convictions of the sect concerned. This was a situation in which the applicant association, in itself, would not normally have had any reason to fear a finding. Therefore, the Court concluded that it is not its task “to rule on legislation in abstracto and it cannot therefore express a view as to the compatibility of the provisions of the new legislation with the Convention”. 236 It added that it would be inconsistent for the applicant to rely on the fact that it is not a movement that infringes freedom and, at the same time, to claim that it is, at least potentially, a victim of the application that may be made concerning the law in question. As a result, the applicant association could not claim to be a potential victim within the meaning of the Convention and its application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention. Judge Pinto de Albuquerque in his partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion in the case of Vallianatos and Others v. Greece, 237 gave an explanation of the term ‘potential victim’ and defined three categories of potential victims. The first and second categories include “those who have to modify their conduct, under pain of criminal prosecution 238 and those who are members of a class of people who risk being directly affected by the legislation, be it ordinary 239 or constitutional legislation. 240 These two categories of people, which may be as broad as to include, for example, ‘all users or potential users of the postal and telecommunication services’, 241 ‘illegitimate children’, 242 ‘women of child-bearing age’ 243 or ‘persons of Roma and Jewish origin’ 244 …”. 245 The final and third category covers “those who have not 234 Soering v. the United Kingdom , 7 July 1989, Series a no. 161. 235 Fédération chrétienne des témoins de Jéhovah de France v. France (dec.), no. 53430/99, ECHR 2001-XI. 236 Ibid. 237 Vallianatos [GC], cited above. 238 Dudgeon , cited above, § 41, Series a no. 45; Norris v. Ireland , 26 October 1988, § 32, Series a no. 142; and S.L. v. Austria , no. 45330/99, ECHR 2003-I (extracts). 239 Marckx v. Belgium , 13 June 1979, § 27, Series a no. 31; Johnston and Others v. Ireland , 18 December 1986, § 42, Series a no. 112; and Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, §§ 33-34, ECHR 2008. 240 Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, §§ 28-29, ECHR 2009. 241 Klass , cited above, §§ 34-37. 242 Marckx , cited above, §§ 44-48. 243 Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland , 29 October 1992, § 44, Series a no. 246-A. 244 Sejdić and Finci , cited above, § 45. 245 Partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion of judge Pinto de Albuquerque in the case of Vallianatos [GC], cited above.

52