NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

Article 9, 354 Article 10, 355 Article 11, 356 Article 13, 357 Article 14 358 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, 359 Article 1 Protocol No. 1 360 and Article 3 Protocol No. 1. 361 If national law envisages the possibility of criminal liability of legal persons, then NGOs may also enjoy guarantees contained in Article 7 of the Convention, 362 Article 2 of Protocol No. 7, 363 Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 364 and Article 4 Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. 365 In view of the autonomous meaning of the term, ‘criminal offence,’ in the case-law of the Court, these guarantees may be applicable also to NGOs in the CoE member states, where corporate criminal liability is not envisaged in the legislation. The key condition, however, is that the respondent state must be party to the Protocol in question. Rachel A. Cichowski 366 notes that some NGOs also invoked in their submissions Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. In theory, there are no limits for possible inventions in interpreting the rights under this international agreement. Only the Court may decide which rights already belong to legal persons and which are excluded from the list of the Convention rights. For example, in the case of OOO Torgovyi Dom “Politeks” v. Russia 367 the applicant, a limited-liability company, complained under, inter alia , Article 3 of the Convention about the seizure and plundering of its goods by the police. The Court held without explanation that the applicant company was not a victim of alleged violations. Unfortunately, it did not answer the question of whether this Article may be applicable to NGOs in general. The applicants in the case of Saarekallas OÜ v. Estonia, 368 a private limited company registered in Estonia and seven Finish nationals, complained that they had been treated in an inhuman 355 OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia , nos. 33501/04, 38608/04, 35258/05 and 35618/05, 22 January 2013. 356 Partidul Comunistilor (Nepeceristi) , cited above; Demokratik Kitle Partisi and Elçi, cited above; United Communist Party of Turkey, cited above; Socialist Party of Turkey (STP), cited above; Republican Party of Russia , cited above. 357 Sylenok and Tekhnoservis-Plus v. Ukraine , no. 20988/02, 9 December 2010, Amat-G Ltd and Mebaghishvili v. Georgia , no. 2507/03, ECHR 2005-VIII. 358 Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, 3 May 2007; Jehovas Zeugen in Österreich, cited above; Magyar Keresztény Mennonita Egyház and Others v. Hungary , nos. 70945/11, 23611/12, 26998/12, 41150/12, 41155/12, 41463/12, 41553/12, 54977/12 and 56581/12, § 50, 8 April 2014 and Canea Catholic Church , cited above. 359 Savez crkava “Riječ života”, cited above. 360 Centro Europa 7 S.r.l., cited above. 361 Russian Conservative Party , cited above. 362 Radio France, cited above. 363 Siglfirðingur ehf v. Iceland (friendly settlement), no. 34142/96, 30 May 2000. 364 Marpa Zeeland B.V. andMetal Welding B.V. v. the Netherlands , no. 46300/99, ECHR 2004-X (extracts). 365 Synnelius and Edsbergs Taxi AB v. Sweden (dec.), no. 44298/02, 17 June 2008, K.S. and K.S. AG v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 19117/91, 12 January 1994, Saarekallas OÜ and Others v. Estonia (dec.), no. 11548/04, 15 May 2006. 366 CICHOWSKI,R.CivilSocietyandtheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights.M.MadsenandJ.Christoffersen, eds.The European Court of Human Rights between Law and Politics. OxfordUniversity Press, 2011, p. 82. 367 OOO Torgovyi Dom “Politeks” v. Russia (dec.), no. 72145/01, 16 September 2004, not published. 368 Saarekallas OÜ (dec.), cited above. 354 Savez crkava “Riječ života” , cited above.

72