NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

yet been victims of a Convention breach, but will be if the impugned State act is performed (for instance, an expulsion order)’. 246 As we see, in theory, the status of potential victim could be applicable to NGOs. Nontheless, it was never confirmed by the Court’s practice yet. In most of the cases, it was noted that simple suspicion or assumption of facing a risk of the Convention breach is not enough to establish this type of victim status. The Court refused to recognise the victim status of persons in a situation where a formal expulsion order was absent 247 or when applicants alleged consequences of a parliamentary report. 248 In the case of Senator Lines GmbH v. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom , 249 the applicant was a maritime transport firm, a limited company incorporated under German law. The case concerned a fine imposed by the European Commission on the applicant company for infringements of European Community competition rules. The applicant was informed that the fine would not be enforced immediately if an appeal was made and, therefore, it challenged the decision before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘CFI’). The applicant, relying on Article 6 of the Convention, also complained before the Court that enforcement of the fine before a judicial determination of the proceedings would have constituted a denial of the right of access to a court. The application concerned proceedings that had not ended when the application was introduced and a fine that had neither been paid nor enforced. Accordingly, the Court came to the conclusion that the facts of the case were never such as to permit the applicant to claim to be a victim of a violation. It was clear that the applicant could not produce reasonable and convincing evidence of the likelihood that a violation affecting it would occur. At that time, it was certain that there was no justification for the applicant’s fear that the fine would be enforced before the CFI hearing. Consequently, the applicant could not even be considered a ‘potential’ victim and the Court declared the application inadmissible. The analysis given above shows that NGOs may claim to be direct and teoretically potential victims. Additionally, a newpossibility to prove locus standi of non-govermental organisations through the concept of de facto representative was introduced. On the basis of this status, anNGOmay complain on behalf of an individual about a violation of any provision of the Convention. Nevertheless, the de facto representation was used by the Court in only one judgment, in a case with exceptional circumstances: Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania . Therefore, at the end the status of a direct victim is the most relevant for an NGO.

Ibid.

246

247 Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France , 27 August 1992, § 46, Series a no. 241-B. 248 Fédération chrétienne des témoins de Jéhovah (dec.), cited above. 249 Senator Lines GmbH v. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 56672/00, ECHR 2004-IV.

53