14 Dec The Convention does not allow governments to use the inter-State applications mechanism to defend the rights of legal entity which is not a “non-governmental organisation” within the meaning of Article 34
In the case of Slovenia v. Croatia (application no. 54155/16, 16.12.2020) the European Court of Human Rights has by a majority declared that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the case.
The case concerned unpaid and overdue debts owed to Ljubljana Bank by various Croatian companies on the basis of loans granted at the time of the former Yugoslavia. The case referred to unpaid and overdue debts that various Croatian companies owed to Ljubljana Bank on the basis of loans given during the former Yugoslavia. The application alleges a violation of the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention in connection with the alleged arbitrary and biased conduct of Croatian courts in this type of dispute, violation of the principle of equality before the law, violation of the right to a fair trial and non-enforcement.
The Court observed that under Article 34 (individual applications) a legal entity could bring a case before it provided that it was a “non-governmental organisation” within the meaning of that Article. The idea behind this principle was to ensure that a State Party could not act as both an applicant and a respondent in the same matter.
The Court emphasised the specific nature of the Convention as an instrument for the effective protection of human rights, and observed that even in an inter-State case it was always the individual who was directly or indirectly harmed and primarily “injured” by a violation of the Convention. In other words, only individuals, groups of individuals and legal entities which qualified as “non-governmental organisations” could be bearers of Convention rights, but not a Contracting State or any legal entity which had to be regarded as a governmental organisation. Thirdly, the Court referred to the principle laid down in Cyprus v. Turkey (just satisfaction), whereby, if just satisfaction was afforded in an inter-State case, it should always be for the benefit of individual victims and not for that of the State. If the Court were to find a violation in a case brought by a State on behalf of a “governmental” entity and to award a sum of money as just satisfaction, then the final beneficiary of that sum would be the applicant State. The Court concluded that Article 33 of the Convention did not allow it to examine an inter-State application seeking to protect the rights of a legal entity which did not qualify as a “non-governmental organisation” and therefore would not be entitled to lodge an individual application under Article 34.
As Ljubljana Bank was not a “non-governmental organisation” within the meaning of Article 34 it did not have standing to lodge an individual application. Accordingly, Article 33 did not empower the Court to examine an inter-State application alleging a violation of any Convention right in respect of this legal entity. The Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the present case.
References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights