NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

rules for the possibility of the third party taking part in the proceedings, but the Rules of Court specify how it functions in practice. Provisions of Rule 44 of the Rules of Court seem to be more logical, because the President of the Chamber is directly involved in the proceedings and is in the best place to evaluate the interests of justice in the current case. Of course, there could be a situation, when the functions of the President of the Court and of the Chamber overlap. In these circumstances, there is no need for clarification and we may apply the Convention directly. As to the time schedule relating to a possibility to file the request to the Court for permission to become a third party, it has to be noted that an appropriate demand may be filed only when notice of an application has been given to the respondent Contracting Party. 396 It means that an NGO may participate in the proceedings only when the application was declared admissible at the first stage. It is, of course, possible that the communicated complaints may be announced manifestly ill founded or inadmissible on any other grounds. In high-profile cases, several NGOs usually take part in the proceedings simultaneously. 397 For example, in the case of Sindicatul “Păstorul cel Bun” v. Romania, 398 concerning a refusal to register a trade union for priests on account of the autonomy of religious communities, a leave to intervene in the written procedure was granted to the NGO European Centre for Law and Justice and the Orthodox Archdiocese of Craiova, as well as to the Moscow Patriarchate, the NGOs Becket Fund and the International Centre for Law and Religion Studies. In addition, the governments of the Republic of Moldova, Poland, Georgia and Greece were also granted this right. Participation of the governments of a few member states confirms the importance and transboundary scope of the subject. The cases concerning activities of a few states or related to serious issues of application of law may also attract the attention of intergovernmental organisations. For example, in the case of Senator Lines GmbH v. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, 399 by virtue of Article 36 § 2 of the Convention, the Court decided to admit as third parties the European Commission, the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union (‘CCBE’), the European Company Lawyers Association (‘ECLA’), the Féderation Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l’Homme (‘FIDH’) and the International Commission of Jurists (‘ICJ’). Third party comments were received from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (‘the OSCE’), which had been granted leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure, in the case of Blečić v. Croatia . 400 These examples show that

396 Rules 51 § 1 or 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court. 397 M.S.S., cited above. 398 Sindicatul “Păstorul cel Bun” [GC], cited above, § 8. 399 Senator Lines GmbH (dec.), cited above. 400 Blečić v. Croatia , no. 59532/00, § 6, 29 July 2004.

77