Application of Legal Entities to the European Court of Human Rights: a Significant Disadvantage as the Condition of Admissibility

Open access

Abstract

This article lists the content and deals with the criteria for assessing the presence or absence of material damage suffered by the applicant to the European Court of Human Rights, the subject of entrepreneurship, as a new condition for the admissibility of an individual application. The article establishes that the list and content of the criteria for assessing the presence or absence of material damage suffered by the applicant to the European Court of Human Rights are different for individuals and for legal entities – business entities. Moreover, the article initiates a discussion on the list and content of these criteria for the subjects of entrepreneurship – the applicants to the European Court of Human Rights. In the light of the Court’s practice, the author reveals their content as well as legal categories such as ‘substantial harm’, ‘financial harm’, ‘pecuniary damage’, ‘non-pecuniary damage’ incurred by the applicant, the subject of entrepreneurship, and highlights the issues to which objectives may be caused by ‘moral harm’ in case of violation of the rights of the subject of entrepreneurship.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Deshko L. 2016. The reasons and motives for national court’s decision: the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and national courts. TEISE 99: 186–193.

  • ECHR 1981. X. vs. the United Kingdom 10 July [online]. Available at: www.hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{“itemid”:[“001-74405”]} (accessed 15 November 2018).

  • ECHR 1997. Gorsby vs. Greece 19 March [online]. Available at: www.hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/001-58020?TID=ihgdqbxnfi. (accessed 15 November 2017).

  • ECHR 2000. Comingersoll S.A. vs. Portugal 6 April [online]. Available at: www.echr.ketse.com/doc/35382.97-en-20000406/ (accessed 9 January 2018).

  • ECHR 20011. Sancho Cruz and 14 other «Agrarian Reform» cases vs. Portugal 18 January [online]. Available at: www. http://echr.ketse.com/doc/8851.07-8854.07-8856.07-8865.07-etc-en-20110118/ (accessed 10 January 2018).

  • ECHR 2002. Burdov vs. Russia 7 May [online]. Available at: http://sutyajnik.ru/rus/echr/judgments/burdov.htm (accessed 9 January 2018).

  • ECHR 2004. Svetlana Naumenko vs. Ukraine 9 November [online]. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%20 (accessed 11 January 2018).

  • ECHR 2006. Efimenko vs. Ukraine. 18 July [online]. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%20 (accessed 11 January 2018).

  • ECHR 2007. Havelka and Others vs. the Czech Republic 21 June [online]. Available at: www.hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{“itemid”:[“001-81272”]} (accessed 9 January 2018).

  • ECHR 2007. Intersplav vs. Ukraine 31 March [online]. Available at: www.hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{“tabview”:[“document”]”itemid”:[“001-148852”]} (accessed 10 January 2018).

  • ECHR 2009. Dacia S. R. L vs. Moldova 14 September [online]. Available at: www.hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{“itemid”:[“001-91479”]} (accessed 1 September 2017).

  • ECHR 2010. Fernandes vs. France 20 January [online]. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%20 (accessed 10 January 2018).

  • ECHR 2010. Korolev vs. Russia 1 July [online]. Available at: www.hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{“appno”:[“25551/05”]”itemid”:[“001-99843”]} (accessed 11 January 2018).

  • ECHR 2010. Ukraine-center vs. Ukraine 15 July [online]. Available at: http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_594 (accessed 11 January 2018).

  • ECHR 2010. Vasilchenko vs. Russia 23 September [online]. Available at: www.hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/001-100461?TID=thkbhnilzk. (accessed 1 September 2017).

  • ECHR 2011. Basarba OOD vs. Bolgaria 20 April [online]. Available at: www.hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{“itemid”:[“001-102898”]} (accessed 7 September 2017).

  • ECHR 2011. Burov vs. Moldova 14 June [online]. Available at: www.hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-105441 (accessed 29 September 2017).

  • ECHR 2011. Editorial Board of Pravoye Delo and Shtekel vs. Ukraine 5 August [online]. Available at: www.hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-104685&filename=001-104685.pdf. (accessed 10 January 2018).

  • ECHR 2011. Finger vs. Bulgaria 10 August [online]. Available at: www.hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{“itemid”:[“001-104698”]} (accessed 10 January 2018).

  • ECHR 2011. Giuran vs. Romania 21 June [online]. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%20 (accessed 11 January 2018).

  • ECHR 2011. Luchaninova vs. Ukraine 9 June [online]. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%20 (accessed 4 January 2018).

  • ECHR 2011. Živić vs. Serbia 13 December [online]. Available at: www.hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{“itemid”:[“001-106192”]} (accessed 4 January 2018).

  • ECHR 2012. Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and di Stefano vs. Italy 7 June [online]. Available at: www.hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-111399&filename=001-111399.pdf. (accessed 5 January 2018).

  • ECHR 2012. Gagliano Giorgi vs. Italy 6 March [online]. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%20 (accessed 4 January 2018).

  • ECHR 2012. Shefer vs. Russia 13 March [online]. Available at: http://bit.ly/2ONxZwZ (accessed 15 November 2017).

  • ECHR 2013. Agrokomplex vs. Ukraine 9 December [online]. Available at: www.sc.gov.ua/ua/rishennja_cshodo_ukrajini_vineseni_jevropejskim_sudom_z_prav_ljudini.html (accessed 15 November 2017).

  • ECHR 2014. Budchenko vs. Ukraine 24 April [online]. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%20 (accessed 15 November 2017).

  • ECHR 2014. East/West Alliance Limited vs. Ukraine 2 June [online]. Available at: www.hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{“appno”:[“19336/04”]”itemid”:[“001-140029”]} (accessed 1 September 2017).

  • ECHR 2016. LTD “Polimerkonteiner” vs. Ukraine 24 November [online]. Available at: www.sc.gov.ua/ua/rishennja_cshodo_ukrajini_vineseni_jevropejskim_sudom_z_prav_ljudini.html (accessed 9 January 2018).

  • ECHR 2017. CJSC “Pivdenbudtrans” and others vs. Ukraine 18 May [online]. Available at: www.montclarecampbell.co.uk/feed-items/pivdenbudtrans-zat-and-others-v-ukraine-2945506-judgment-violation-of-article-6-right-to-a-fair-trial-article-6-civil-proceedings-article-6-1-reasonable-time-violation-of-art-2017/ (accessed 4 January 2018).

  • European Court of Human Rights 2014. A Practical Guide to the Conditions of Admissibility of Applications Strasbourg.

  • European Court of Human Rights 2014. Court’s case-law on the list and content of criteria for measuring the presence or absence of material damage to the applicant as an individual Strasbourg.

  • European Court of Human Rights 2017. Analysis of statistics by year 2006-2017 [online]. Available at: www.echr.coe.int/sites/search_eng/pages/search.aspx#{“sort”:[“createdAsDateDescending”],”Title”:[“\”analysisofstatistics\”“],”contentlanguage”:[“ENG”]} (accessed 12 February 2018).

  • European Court of Human Rights 2017. Pending applications allocated to a judicial formation 2018 [online]. Available at: www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_pending_2018_BIL.pdf (accessed 12 Fabruary 2018).

  • European Court of Human Rights 2017. Violations by Article and by State 1959-2017 [online]. Available at:www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_violation_1959_2017_ENG.pdf (accessed 5 Fabruary 2018).

  • Gerards J. Glas L. 2017. Access to justice in the European Convention on Human Rights system. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 35(1): 11–30.

  • Keller Y. Fischer A. and Kühne D. 2010. Debating the Future of the European Court of Human Rights after the Interlaken Conference: Two Innovative Proposals. The European Journal of International Law 21(4): 1025-1048.

  • Leach P. 2011. Taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Rainey B. Wicks E. Ovey C. 2017. The European Convention on Human Rights. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Shelton D. 2016. Significantly Disadvantaged? Shrinking Access to the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review 16: 303–322.

  • The Council of Europe 2011. The Declaration on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights Izmir. Available at: http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/994_a49 [accessed 20 January 2018].

  • Vogiatzis N. 2016. The admissibility criterion under article 35 (3) ECHR: a significant disadvantage’ to Human Rights Protection? International & Comparative Law Quarterly 65: 185-211.

  • Deshko L. 2016. Konstitucijne pravo na zvernennya do mizhnarodnix sudovix ustanov ta mizhnarodnix organizacij: monografiya. Uzhgorod.

  • Evgrafov P. Tixij V. 2018. Pravotlumachna diyalnist Evropejskogo sudu z prav lyudini i ii znachennya dlya Ukraini. available at: httr://www.lawyer.org.ua/?d=692&i=12&w=r (accessed 10 december 2017).

  • Kovler A. 2011. Pravovye pozicii Evropejskogo suda po pravam cheloveka (v svete postanovlenij prinyatyx v 2010 g. po zhalobam protiv Rossijskoj Federacii). Rossijskoe pravosudie 2 (58): 16-31.

  • Panteleeva K. 2015. Pretor ne zanimaetsya melochami ili novyj kriterij priemlemosti zhalob v Evropejskij sud po pravam cheloveka. Aktualnye problemy rossijskogo prava 3 (52): 143-144.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.31

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.114
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.418

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 248 190 11
PDF Downloads 135 104 8