NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

Representation by an NGO or by a practicing lawyer In some cases, it is unclear whether the applicant was represented by an NGO or by a practicing lawyer, which is not related to the NGO. For instance, in the case of Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia, the applicant was “represented by Mr P. Leach and Mr K. Koroteyev, lawyers from the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre” 424 (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘EHRAC’). Mr P. Leach and Ms J. Gordon supplied the applicant’s representation in the case of Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, 425 with reference that they are lawyers of the EHRAC. We also find the same NGO and its lawyer, Mr Philip Leach, in a number of other cases. 426 However, in the case of Fadeyeva v. Russia, it was simply noted, that the applicant was represented by “Mr B. Bowring and Mr P. Leach, solicitors in England and Wales”. 427 Similarly, in the case of Yudina v. Russia, we find a number of surnames, among which there is the name of Mr. Leach, stating that they are “lawyers practising in London, United Kingdom.” 428 This case does not contain any information on the connection of Mr P. Leach to the EHRAC. These examples show that it is impossible to absolutely clearly identify in which cases an applicant was represented by a lawyer belonging to an NGO, and where the lawyer, as a representative, acted independently. It is of interest that the staff of many prominent NGOs are foreigners and a considerable part of their funding comes from abroad. 429 Accordingly, NGOs in Europe and in the world closely cooperate with each other and provide mutual support in the realization of human rights projects. In the case of Fadeyeva v. Russia, 430 the applicant was represented by Mr P. Leach, an English lawyer, and also by Ms D. Vedernikova, a lawyer with the Russian NGO “Memorial”. Ms Vedernikova and Mr Leach also worked together on the case of Lopata v. Russia. 431 In this case, both of them were titled as “lawyers with the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC)”. It is of no importance to which NGO Ms Vedernikova belongs; the fact that Russian and English lawyers work together on submissions to the Court deserves attention. Mr Mayer concluded that in ten years of proceedings before the Court, NGOs in the position of representatives of the applicant participated in a total of 305 cases out of the 10,067 discussed on the merits. 432 We are not acquainted with the exact method 426 Korobov and Others v. Estonia , no. 10195/08, 28 March 2013; Kakabadze and Others v. Georgia , no. 1484/07, 2 October 2012; Lopata v. Russia , no. 72250/01, 13 July 2010. 427 Fadeyeva v. Russia , no. 55723/00, § 2, ECHR 2005-IV. 428 Yudina v. Russia , no. 52327/08, § 2, 10 July 2012. 429 See for example – http://srji.home.pl/about/. 430 Fadeyeva, cited above, § 2. 431 Lopata , cited above, § 2. 432 It should be noted that the definition of NGO proposed by Mr Mayer is different from how we understand the Article 34 NGO. According to him, only non-profit organisations were considered to be NGOs. Therefore, the data referred to in the research can be regarded as some kind of minimum. It means that at least such number of Article NGOs participated in the proceeding before the Court, however real figures will be higher. 424 Sergey Zolotukhin [GC], cited above, § 2. Oleksandr Volkov , cited above, § 2. 425

81