NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

purpose of the Convention. However, in such a situation, the shareholder companies may lodge a complaint with the Convention body only subsequent to the company’s final cessation, 347 and in this case, they probably would have the status of direct victims. The category of potential victim deserves special attention. It is applicable to NGOs under Article 34 of the Convention, but to a very limited extent. The Court dealt with the concept of a potential victim in the case of Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland 348 on the basis of applications received from Open Door Counselling Ltd and Dublin Well Woman Centre Ltd, both Irish companies. The case concerned governmental measures restricting the distribution of information on abortion to women of childbearing age. The Court here recalled that the Convention entitles applicants to claim that a law violates their rights by itself, in the absence of an individual implementation measure, if they run the risk of being directly affected by it. 349 By seeking to challenge the compatibility of Irish law with the Convention not in abstracto , but because they were running a risk of being directly prejudiced by the measure complained of, they could thus claim to be ‘victims’ within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. Rights of an applicant Due to the specific nature of the NGOs playing the role of the applicant, they may invoke a smaller number of Articles in comparison with individual applicants. NGOs can hardly complain of a violation of their right to life (Article 2 of the Convention) or the right not to be tortured (Article 3 of the Convention). It is impossible to imagine that an NGO will be held in slavery or servitude (Article 4 of the Convention). Often, legal theorists, when describing the applicant NGOs status, refer only to Articles 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 350 The analysis of the case-law of the Court shows, however, that the number of provisions contained in the Convention and its Protocols, on which the non-governmental organisations in the capacity of an applicant may rely, is considerably higher. 351 NGOs may allege an infringement of Article 6, 352 Article 8, 353 349 Johnston , cited above, § 42. 350 See for example, LINDBLOM, 2005, cited above, pp. 176, 255 and KUČERA, M. Responsibility of the state under the Convention in connection of non-state actors and applicability of the Convention in business . Stát vs. Nestátní aktéři / Česká společnost pro mezinárodní právo. – Praha: Česká společnost pro mezinárodní právo, 2012, p. 168. 351 For details see, TYMOFEYEVA, A. The legal status of non-governmental organisations under the European Convention on Human Rights and consequences in international law (Právní postavení nevládních organizací podle Evropské úmluvy o lidských právech a důsledky v mezinárodním právu) in: Nové trendy odpovědnosti a řešení sporů v mezinárodním právu (vliv nestátních aktérů): studie z mezinárodního práva, – 1. vyd. – Praha: Univerzita Karlova, právnická fakulta, 2012, pp. 110-111. 352 Canea Catholic Church v. Greece , 16 December 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII; Procola v. Luxembourg , 28 September 1995, Series a no. 326; Association Ekin v. France , no. 39288/98, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Saarekallas OÜ v. Estonia , no. 11548/04, 8 November 2007. 353 Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria , no. 74336/01, ECHR 2007-IV. 347 Agrotexim, cited above. 348 Open Door and Dublin Well Woman, cited above.

71