NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

1.2.1.3 Formal existence Let us have a look on the next possible prerequisite to the status of non-governmental organisation that is formal existence. One of the requirements for an NGO in the doctrine of international law, and in some international treaties, is legal personality under national law. In this section of the book, we will scrutinize the attitude of the Court towards the condition of formal existence of NGOs in Article 34 of the Convention. We have already mentioned that a group of individuals is not obliged to be formally registered by the state in order to lodge an application with the Court. 250 Here, we will focus on the recognition condition of non-governmental organisations. In a number of cases, mostly concerning the right to association, the Court recognised as victims of violations NGOs that were not registered under domestic law. In the case of The Argeş College of Legal Advisers v. Romania, 251 the Romanian government brought objections concerning the applicant’s victim status, namely that “the applicant’s request to register as an association had been dismissed and therefore the applicant did not have legal personality”. 252 The Court noted that “the word ‘victim’ in the context of Article 34 of the Convention denotes the person directly affected by the act or omission in issue. Consequently, the conditions governing individual applications under the Convention are not necessarily the same as the national criteria relating to locus standi in legal proceedings. National rules in this respect may serve purposes different from those contemplated by Article 34 and whilst those purposes may sometimes be analogous, they need not always be. Indeed, the underlying object of the Convention mechanism is to provide an effective and practical safeguard to those personally affected by violations of fundamental human rights”. 253 It was reiterated that, without giving an association the possibility to submit a complaint to the Court, it would be unable to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over decisions concerning the applicant’s rights under Article 11 of the Convention when the complaints that the individual members of the applicant association may raise before the Court are different from the ones raised by the applicant association itself. It finally concluded that “the applicant association may claim to be a victim of the violations complained of for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention”. 254 In some cases, the Court does not distinguish between the rights of an NGO under Article 34 of the Convention and the rights of individuals. In one of the newest cases of the Court, titled Association of Victims of Romanian Judges and Others v. Romania, 255 an application was lodged by the Association of Victims of Romanian Judges ( Asociaţia Victimelor Magistraţilor din România ) and nine Romanian nationals, who were the founders of the applicant association according to its articles of association. Together, the applicants alleged that the refusal of the domestic courts 250 Minority Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights . Pamphlet No. 7 (online). URL: accessed 17 February 2015. 251 The Argeş College of Legal Advisers v. Romania , no. 2162/05, 8 March 2011. 252 Ibid. , § 23. 253 Ibid. , § 25. 254 Ibid. , § 27. 255 Association of Victims of Romanian Judges, cited above.

54