NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

It even happens that in one document the term ‘NGO’ may have a few different meanings. This is what happened with the phrase ‘non-governmental organisation’ in the Convention itself. Here, the understanding of this phrase in Article 34 of the Convention and Article 36 or Article 46 of the Convention can be different. While only non-profit-making human rights organisations play the roles of third parties and information providers before the Committee of Ministers, financial corporations and political parties can also perform the role of applicants. Moreover, there is also a distinction between the understanding of ‘NGO’ in Rule 36 of the Rules of Court in comparison with the meaning under the other capacities. The role of a representative of the applicant before the Court is performed by lawyers not only from human rights NGOs, but also by those working in law firms. It has never been confirmed that representative lawyers were employed by a political party, yet the opposite has not been proved either. Based on these conclusions, the term ‘NGO’ may be understood differently in various parts of the Convention, depending on the circumstances of the particular case and the role played by the NGO therein. Considering that the special position of an applicant in the proceedings before the Court is a key subject, for the purposes of this study we will distinguish only between two different types of NGOs, namely, a non-governmental organisation acting in the capacity of an applicant under Article 34 of the Convention and an NGO in other capacities. An analysis of the case-law shows that the first type of NGOs includes different types of legal persons such as business companies, religious organisations, political parties or non-profit organisations pursuing non-political aims. On the contrary, the second type may be strongly attached to the classical meaning of NGO, namely a non-profit organisation, especially those NGOs focusing on the area of human rights. This group could be seen as only one type of NGO in the sense of Article 34 of the Convention. To be more precise, it must be noted that commercial law firms may also act as representatives of an applicant. However, it is unclear whether these law offices, acting in the capacity of a representative, may be also titled NGOs or whether they belong to a separate category. The Court has not clarified this question in its case-law. The research did not prove that the other types of subjects, such as political parties, are excluded from the enjoyment of the rights of third parties, information providers or representatives. The study was also not able to establish that these rights are bestowed upon them. As far as it was not proved that political parties and commercial companies act as representatives, amici curiae and information providers under the Convention, we presume that NGOs as applicants are different from NGOs playing the other tree roles. In order to avoid confusion in terminology, the author proposes the use of a special definition for NGOs under Article 34 of the Convention, mainly to be used for the purposes of the current study in relation to the standing of an applicant. This concept was elaborated upon in the Court’s case-law, through a comparison made between the terms used within the text of the Convention and the other international treaties, as well as in the theory of international law. Accordingly, the author proposes

97