NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

religious organisations 273 and different types of business entities, 274 have the right to lodge applications with the Court. As far as these subjects fall under the category of ‘NGO’, it is possible to conclude that two other categories, apart from the traditional non profit making institutions, fall under the phrase ‘non-governmental organisation’ in the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention: business companies and political parties. This section aspires to prove by means of the examples from the case-law of the Court that the term ‘NGO’ under the Convention also comprises profit-making business entities and organisations pursuing an aim to exercise political power in the state. The first part of this section will seek to confirm the thesis that, for the purposes of the Convention, an income-gathering entity is also an NGO. In the second part, we will try to prove the same hypothesis in respect of political parties. Profit-making organisation Unlike most of the other international human rights bodies 275 and international law theorists, 276 the Court also implies business entities by the term NGO. In the above mentioned case of Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Turkey, it highlighted that a commercial company is “entitled to bring an application under Article 34 of the Convention”. 277 This case originated with the application from the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, an Iranian State-owned shipping company incorporated in Teheran (Iran). In its preliminary objections, the government of Turkey alleged that the applicant company did not have locus standi under Article 34 of the Convention due to dependency on the state. The Court did not agree with the government and grounded its decisions as follows: v. Turkey , no. 26482/95, 12 November 2003; The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – PIRIN and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 59489/00, 20 October 2005; United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey , 30 January 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; Herri Batasuna , cited above. 273 Savez crkava “Riječ života”, cited above ; Association Cultuelle du Temple Pyramide , cited above; Association des Chevaliers du Lotus d’Or v. France , no. 50615/07, 31 January 2013, Eglise Evangélique Missionnaire and Salaûn v. France , no. 25502/07, 31 January 2013. 274 Kirovogradoblenergo, PAT v. Ukraine , no. 35088/07, 27 June 2013; Askon AD v. Bulgaria , no. 9970/05, 16 October 2012 ; OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia , no. 14902/04, 20 September 2011; OAO Plodovaya Kompaniya v. Russia , no. 1641/02, 7 June 2007; Oklešen and Pokopališko Pogrebne Storitve Leopold Oklešen S.P. v. Slovenia , no. 35264/04, 30 November 2010; Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic v. Sweden , no. 36985/97, 23 July 2002 ; Centro Europa 7 S.r.l., cited above; Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, ECHR 2007-I; Regent Company v. Ukraine , no. 773/03, 3 April 2008; Sacilor-Lormines v. France , no. 65411/01, ECHR 2006-XIII and Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria , no. 49429/99, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts). 275 For example, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (see for details http://www.oas.org/en/ iachr/mandate/what.asp), The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (see for details http://www. corteidh.or.cr/index.cfm?&CFID=1592285&CFTOKEN=47374566), The African Court on Human and Peoples‘ Rights (see for details http://www.african-court.org/en/), Commission for Environmental Cooperation (see for details http://www.cec.org) and many others consider an NGO to be a non-profit making organization, which is independent from governmental bodies. 276 TOMUSCHAT, 2008, cited above; LINDBLOM, 2005, cited above; WILLETTS, cited above, describe in their papers NGO as an organisation, which does not pursue an aim of obtaining profit. 277 Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines , cited above, § 82.

59