NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

lodged by the NGOs, the Open Society Justice Initiative, COSIV, the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) and Open Society Fund Prague. 501 In some cases, it is difficult to distinguish between an NGO-representative and an NGO-information provider. In the case of Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine , 502 Mr Volkov was represented before the Court by a famous human rights law professor, the author of the manual to the Convention, Mr Philip Leach, who was at the same time a director of EHRAC. Professor Leach, as a representative of EHRAC, provided not only the Court with information, but also the Department for the Execution. In his submission of 9 February 2014, 503 Mr Leach not only informed the Department about the individual measures taken in respect of the applicant, but also asked to invoke infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 46 of the Convention. The submission was made on EHRAC letterhead and the signature of Mr. Leach contained the words: “Director, EHRAC, Applicant’s Representative”. Therefore, it was not clear whether the submission was made in the capacity of an individual, a practicing lawyer, or in the capacity of a representative of an NGO. An analysis of the submissions to the Department for the Execution, available on its web pages, 504 shows that the communications to the Committee of Ministers are provided solely by non-profit human rights NGOs. This means that political parties, religious organisations and companies again may not be comprised in the term ‘non-governmental organisations’ within the meaning of Rule 9 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers. 1.3.4 Various understandings and the term ‘Article 34 NGO’ As confirmed above, there is no exact, generally accepted definition of ‘NGO’ in the theory of international law. Different institutions and legal professionals use the expression ‘non-governmental organisation’ in various situations, giving it dissimilar meanings. For example, the notion of NGO in the UNO documents is different from those used in the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. This is understandable because of the different aims and measures used by the United Nations and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America. However, it even happens that within the same organisation, in the diverse documents, the term NGO can be understood differently. This was the case of the CoE treaties, namely the European Social Charter and the Convention. 501 DH-DD(2013)1312E 05 December 2013. 1186 DH meeting (3-5 December 2013) – Communication from NGOs (Open Society Justice Initiative, COSIV, ERRC and Open Society Fund Prague) (26/11/2013) in the case of D.H. and others against Czech Republic (Application No. 57325/00) – Rule 9.2 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers (Anglais uniquement). 502 Oleksandr Volkov , cited above. 503 DH-DD(2014)241E 18 February 2014. 1193 meeting (4-6 March 2014) (DH) – Communication from the applicant’s representative (13/02/2014) in the case of Oleksandr Volkov against Ukraine (Application No. 21722/11) – Information made available under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements (Anglais uniquement). 504 Department for the Execution of Judgments of the Court. URL: accessed 20 July 2015.

96