NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

or when the company was deprived of trade mark rights in the result of applying a bilateral treaty, given that the company had an opportunity to present its position before the national courts. 302 Article 10 of the Convention is by far the most common article invoked by profit making organisations. In this respect, the Court has been occupied by disputes relating to the freedom of expression in situations when the newspapers or magazines published pictures of public figures 303 or articles about ‘the stars’. 304 Unlike the Supreme Court of the United States, 305 the Court considers that the public interest in the protection of journalistic sources 306 overrides even the interest of a criminal investigation under certain circumstances. 307 However, this approach refers only to cases in the traditional sense of journalistic sources, namely, when participants freely gave consent while providing the press with the information. This protection is two-fold, relating not only to the journalist, but also and in particular to the source who volunteer to assist the press in informing the public about matters of public interest. In the situation when the journalist used a hidden camera and participants were not aware of the fact that they had been recorded, they could not be regarded as sources of journalistic information in the traditional sense. Therefore, the Convention did not guarantee protection against disclosure of the data obtained in that way. 308 Nevertheless, in general it is possible to conclude that Article 10 of the Convention provides very strong protection for confidential press sources 309 and is widely used by publishing companies. The profit-making NGOs may undoubtedly complain of a violation of their rights under many other Articles of the Convention and Protocols thereto, which we will see in the section concerning rights of the applicants.The aimof the present section is not to cover all of the issues, but only to describe the ability of business entities to stand before the Court and to strive to protect their rights. The next section will follow a similar aim, differentiating only by the main actor: instead of business corporations, the author will describe the position of political parties in disputes invoking the Convention rights. By describing the cases concerning this second group of NGOs, the author aims to prove that the phrase ‘non-governmental organisation’ in Article 34 of the Convention requires a special definition, which comprises not only non-profit organisations and business entities of different types, but also political parties. 303 Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria , no. 76918/01, 14 December 2006; Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France , no. 71111/01, 14 June 2007, MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom , no. 39401/04, 18 January 2011. 304 Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, 7 February 2012. 305 Branyburg v. Hayes , 408 U.S. 665 (1972). 306 Telegraaf Media Nederland Landelijke Media B.V. and Others v. the Netherlands , no. 39315/06, 22 November 2012. 307 Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, 14 September 2010. 308 Nordisk Film & TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 40485/02, ECHR 2005-XIII. 309 Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. [GC], cited above , and Financial Times Ltd and Others v. the United Kingdom , no. 821/03, 15 December 2009. 302 Anheuser-Busch Inc. [GC] , cited above.

63