NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

lodged with the Commission, the applicant bank, although under compulsory administration, still existed as a legal person. It was at that time represented by its compulsory administrator, who had replaced the statutory body of the bank. The main question regarding the admissibility of this application was whether, under the circumstances of the present case, the compulsory administrator alone was authorised to lodge an application on behalf of the bank. The Court referred to the Agrotexim case , where it held that shareholders in the company could not be regarded as entitled to apply to the Convention institutions to complain of an interference with the company’s property. Nonetheless, in the Credit and Industrial Bank case, the Court decided to change the standard approach. The Court noted that, in exceptional circumstances, it would be justified to disregard a company’s legal personality, specifically when it is impossible for the company to apply to the Convention institutions through its liquidators in the event of liquidation. In this case, the applicant NGO was represented by its two liquidators who had legal capacity to defend its rights and, therefore, to apply to the Convention institutions if they considered it appropriate. Materials from the case show that the liquidators did not perform their duties satisfactorily. It was stressed that in contrast to the situation in the Agrotexim case , the complaint in the present case related not to an alleged interference with the property rights of the bank, but to the very fact that a compulsory administrator was appointed on behalf of the CNB without a proper opportunity being granted to the bank, which was the subject of the administration order, to oppose it. The essence of the objection was the denial of effective access to a court in order to oppose or appeal the appointment of a compulsory administrator. The Court accordingly held that in view of the particular nature of the complaints made, there were exceptional circumstances that entitled Mr Moravec, as its majority shareholder, to lodge a valid application on the bank’s behalf. To hold that the administrator alone was authorised to represent the bank in lodging an application with the Convention institutions would make the provisions of Article 34 of the Convention theoretical and illusory. 1.2.1.4 Special forms in which NGOs under Article 34 may exist From the examples given above, it is clear that business companies are entitled to bring a claim before the Court. Let us have a look on a variety of forms, in which NGOs, acting as an applicant, may be seen for the purposes of the Convention. The case-law of the Court shows that many different entities, such as political parties, 272 272 Democracy and Change Party and Others v. Turkey , nos. 39210/98 and 39974/98, 26 April 2005; Demokratik Kitle Partisi and Elçi v. Turkey , no. 51290/99, 3 May 2007; Dicle for the Democratic Party (DEP) of Turkey v. Turkey , no. 25141/94, 10 December 2002; Freedom and Democracy Party ( ÖZDEP ) v. Turkey [GC], no. 23885/94, ECHR 1999-VIII, Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia , no. 9103/04, ECHR 2008; Grüne Alternative Wien v. Austria (striking out), no. 13281/02, 29 November 2011; Parti nationaliste basque, cited above ; Partidul Comunistilor (Nepeceristi)and Ungureanu v. Romania , no. 46626/99, ECHR 2005-I (extracts); Presidential Party of Mordovia v. Russia , no. 65659/01, 5 October 2004; Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, ECHR 2003-II; Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey , nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, 31 July 2001; Republican Party of Russia v. Russia , no. 12976/07, 12 April 2011, Russian Conservative Party, cited above ; Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey , 25 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, Socialist Party of Turkey (STP) and Others

58