NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

to register the applicant association was unjustified and in breach of their right to freedom of association under Article 11 of the Convention. In the present case, the Court did not deal with the victim status of the applicant association. It only noted that the application was not inadmissible on any grounds. Deciding on the merits, it came to the conclusion that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention. The Court did not specify which of the applicants suffered a breach of the Convention and held that the respondent state had to pay a just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to the applicants jointly. The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria 256 presented a similar situation. The application to the Court was also lodged by the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and by several members of its management committee. Without any further explanation as to the identity of the exact victim, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention because the refusal to register the association was disproportionate to the objectives pursued. To be more precise, we must note that the formal existence of NGOs is not required in respect of limited categories of cases when a refusal to register, or the dissolution of the non-governmental organisation was a ground for the alleged breaches of the Convention. Most frequently, applicant NGOs without legal existence maintain breaches of Article 11 of the Convention (freedom of assembly and association). 257 In this category of cases, a dissolved organisation may also become an applicant in the case itself 258 or together with its former participants. 259 Very often, the complaints about dissolution are connected with Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention. For example, in the case of Biblical Centre of the Chuvash Republic v. Russia, the applicant organisation complained about the restriction on its right to teach its followers and the decision on its dissolution under Articles 9, 11 and 14 of the Convention. 260 In this case, the Court decided that the complaint about the dissolution of a religious organisation must be examined from the standpoint of Article 9 of the Convention, and the Court dealt primarily with this provision. Regarding Article 10 of the Convention, in the case of Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası v. Turkey , the Court found that the proceedings initiated for the dissolution of the applicant union were aimed at forcing this NGO to delete the impugned wording from its constitution. Such a restriction was disproportionate to the aims pursued and not ‘necessary in a democratic society’, which led to a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. 261 The given examples show that non-governmental organisations have the right to lodge an application with the Court even when they have ceased to exist or when Biblical Centre of the Chuvash Republic v. Russia , no. 33203/08, 12 June 2014; Association Rhino and Others v. Switzerland , no. 48848/07, § 3, 11 October 2011 and Herri Batasuna and Batasuna v. Spain , nos. 25803/04 and 25817/04, § 3, ECHR 2009. 258 Biblical Centre of the Chuvash Republic , cited above, § 1 and Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası v. Turkey , no. 20641/05, § 1, ECHR 2012 (extracts). 259 Tüm Haber Sen and Çınar v. Turkey , no. 28602/95, § 1, ECHR 2006-II. 260 Biblical Centre of the Chuvash Republic , cited above, § 42. 261 Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası , cited above, § 76-77. 256 The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 59491/00, 19 January 2006. 257

55