NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

intergovernmental organisations, such as the European Union 401 or the OSCE, 402 may also act in the capacity of third parties together with NGOs. Such information is important because it indicates the significance of the case and the high probibility of the NGOs’ third parties participation. As to the character of the NGOs, which take part in the proceedings before the Court as amicus curiae, it would be untrue to say that only big, well-known NGOs, such as Amnesty International, 403 Interights 404 or Human Rights Watch 405 take part in proceedings as thirds parties. There are a number of smaller institutions that successfully intervene in procedures based on the Convention. For instance, the British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF), 406 the Voluntary Euthanasia Society and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, 407 the Human Rights Training Institute of the Paris Bar Association, 408 Becket Fund, 409 the Peace Institute – Institute for Contemporary Social and Political Studies, 410 the Centre for Reproductive Rights and the Family Planning Association 411 and many others have all acted as third parties in Court proceedings. All of these interveners are primarily the organisations that do not pursue an aim to obtain a profit; they are not the business entities. With regard to written procedure, it also cannot be said that the right of a third party to submit comments is granted almost automatically. For instance, in the case of Hutten-Czapska v. Poland, 412 the President of the Chamber rejected the request of the Polish Association of Tenants (Polskie Zrzeszenie Lokatorów) to file a written opinion. In accordance with Rule 44 of the Rules of Court, third-party NGOs are also authorized to take part in an oral session, but only on exceptional bases. The author was not able to find a case where the NGO was granted the right to join oral hearings before the Court. Except for the main participants (an applicant and the respondent state), this prerogative is usually given to governments of the states, which are not the respondent, but the interests of which are concerned. 413 Moreover, in some cases the right to present arguments in the oral hearing was given to intergovernmental organisations. In the case of Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi 401 Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, ECHR 2005- and Senator Lines GmbH (dec.), cited above. 402 Blečić , cited above. 403 X and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 19010/07, ECHR 2013, El Masri [GC], cited above; M.S.S., cited above, and Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom , no. 8139/09, ECHR 2012 (extracts). 404 D. H. [GC], cited above; and El Masri [GC], cited above. 405 Othman (Abu Qatada) , cited above ; Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 3727/08, 7 February 2012, D.H. [GC], cited above. 406 X and Others , cited above. 407 Pretty v. the United Kingdom , no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III. 408 Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, ECHR 2009. 409 Sindicatul “Păstorul cel Bun” [GC], cited above. 410 Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts). 411 Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, ECHR 2004-VIII. 412 Hutten-Czapska v. Poland , no. 35014/97, § 13, 22 February 2005 413 Adamov v. Switzerland , no. 3052/06, § 4, 21 June 2011.

78