The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has found that an NGO did not have standing to de facto represent two intellectually disabled adolescents who died in institutions in Bulgaria in 2006 and 2007. The criteria enumerated in Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Vincent Campeanu v Romania was applied in this case, but distinguished primarily on the basis that the applicant organisation was not in contact with the deceased before their death and that it was never considered as possessing formal status in a domestic context.
The case involved an NGO, the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (BHC), that become engaged in the matter after a BBC documentary highlighted the current situation that children with intellectual disabilities faced in certain institutions in Bulgaria. Aneta Yordanova and Nikolina Kutsarova died in hospital on 7th October 2006 and 31st October 2007 respectively. The State Prosecutor made initial investigations into these deaths, which were concluded with the determination that there were insufficient grounds for criminal prosecution. BHC placed pressure upon the State to review the investigations and lodged various appeals ultimately resulting in a final judgment which discontinued all investigations into the deaths of the deceased adolescents. It was this decision that BHC made an application against claiming both adolescents had suffered multiple violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
BHC attempted to rely on the judgment in Campeanu, in which the usually strict formal rules for legal representation were relaxed due to the exceptional nature of the case. Campeanu involved a similar fact scenario in which a mentally impaired adolescent died in a psychiatric hospital. The Centre for Legal Resources of Romania filed an application with the ECtHR in relation to this incident. However, Article 34 of the ECHR mandates that it is necessary to claim as a victim of a violation of some rights guaranteed under the Convention. Furthermore, previous ECHR jurisprudence has stated that NGOs do not have the standing to submit an application on the part of persons they have been engaging with unless they have direct authorisation by the victims themselves. Four main reasons persuaded the Court to make an allowance in the case of Campeanu. First, the victim had no capacity to bring the case himself. Secondly, the NGO’s proceedings received no challenge in the domestic context. Thirdly, the victim had no next of kin and no legal guardian. Finally, as Mr Campeanu was dead he would obviously not be able to pursue the Article 2 complaint.
This decision appeared to open up some scope for NGOs to de facto represent intellectually disabled persons who have since died. However, the judgment in Bulgarian Helsinki Committee v Bulgaria would appear to have closed the door on this possibility somewhat. In Bulgarian Helsinki,the Court found that although three out of four of the criteria in Campeanu were fulfilled, there were two crucial factors which distinguished these cases. The Court considered determinative both the fact that BHC had never interacted with the victims before they died and that BHC’s formal status was challenged in the domestic context. In light of these facts, the Court rejected the application as ‘incompatible ratione personae with the Convention’.
The Court specified that it did not wish for its decision to be viewed as disregard for the invaluable work NGO’s do to protect the human rights and dignity of vulnerable people.
Click here for the full judgement in Bulgarian Helsinki Committee v Bulgaria.