11 Radio A.G. and Others v. Switzerland,53 Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Elenkov v. Bulgaria,54 Ankarcrona v. Sweden55 and Eugenia Michaelidou Developments LTD and Michael Tymios v. Turkey,56 when a company has a single shareholder or when just one shareholder holds all the share capital. Thus, the European Court has considered it admissible that a company’s sole shareholder may apply individually to the organs of the European system to claim the violation of the rights of the company or enterprise because, in the opinion of the Court, in that situation there is no risk of differences of opinion among shareholders or between shareholders and a board of directors.57 37. In the case of Khamidov v. Russia,58 the European Court established a third exception to be able to apply, subsidiarily, to the system for the protection of human rights; thus, it considered that if one shareholder decided to apply to the organs of the Convention but not the other/others or the company, the individual who chose to apply to the Court would be considered a victim.59 38. 53 To the contrary, in the cases of F Santos LDA and Fachadas v. Portugal,60 Nosov v. Case of Groppera Radio A.G. and Others v. Switzerland, No. 10890/84, March 28, 1990, paras. 46 to 51. The Court noted at the outset that it was only the applicant company, Glas Nadezhda EOOD, that had been established as a victim, because it had applied for and was denied a license. The issue thus arose of whether the second applicant, Mr. Elenkov, who was its sole member and manager, could himself claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. The Court noted that in the case of Groppera Radio AG et al. v. Switzerland it had found that the sole shareholder and statutory representative of a company could also be considered as a victim as regards a ban on broadcasting. Since the case in hand was indistinguishable in that regard, the Court considered that Mr. Elenkov could also claim to be a victim of a violation. Case of Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Elenkov v. Bulgaria, No. 14134/02, October 11, 2007. 54 Following the criteria developed in the case of Groppera Radio AG, once again in this case, the European Court considered admissible that a sole shareholder of a company apply individually to the organs of the European human rights system to claim the violation of the company’s rights and, also, considered that there was no risk of differences of opinion among the shareholders or between shareholders and a board of directors. Case of Ankarcrona v. Sweden, No. 35178/97, October 26, 2000. 55 56 The European Court reached the conclusion that a sole shareholder who held almost all the share capital, with the exception of a small percentage belonging to his wife, had the condition of victim of violations of the European Convention that directly prejudiced the company, because this should be considered a mere vehicle for his business projects. Specifically, between July and November 1986, the applicant had held all of the shares apart from forty shares, which were in his wife’s name; from November 19, 1986, onwards, he held all the shares, apart from one, which was owned by his wife, and after April 3, 1996, the ownership of the property was assigned to him. In the opinion of the European Court, both applicants (the company and the applicant) were so closely identified with each other that it would be artificial to regard each as an applicant in its/his own right. In reality, the first applicant (the company) is the second applicant’s company and the vehicle for his business projects. Case of Eugenia Michaelidou Developments LTD and Michael Tymios v. Turkey, No. 16163/90, July 31, 2003 Case of Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Elenkov v. Bulgaria, paras. 40 and 41; Case of Ankarcrona v. Sweden, para. 24 and Case of Eugenia Michaelidou Developments LTD and Michael Tymios v. Turkey, para. 21. 57 The applicant, a Chechen, was the co-owner of a company. The European Court considered that the applicant could claim to be a victim as he held a 50% share in a limited liability company together with his brother who held the other 50%. They had constituted the company based on real estate that was the family patrimony, and that had been occupied by Russian counterterrorism forces in the Chechen Republic. Only one of the brothers applied to the European Court (but not the other brother or the company). The European Court found the application admissible owing to the close relationship between the two brothers who had always run the family business together through the company. The applicant’s brother had entrusted the applicant with representation of his interests in the domestic proceedings and clearly supported the application given that he had issued the applicant with a general power of attorney confirming the applicant’s right to represent him should it be necessary. In the circumstances, in the reparations, the European Court merely decided on 50% of the patrimony affected. Case of Khamidov v. Russia, No. 72118/01, November 15, 2007. 58 59 Case of Khamidov v. Russia, para. 125. On April 5, 1990, the company filed an application for compensation with the Santiago District Court against one of its shareholders who presumably had received a certain sum of money on behalf of the company, but had not turned it over to the company. Meanwhile, Ms. Fachadas also, in the procedure before the European Court, alleged that she was a victim. The Court observed as a preliminary point that the second applicant was not a party to the proceedings in question, which only concerned the first applicant; that is, the company. Therefore, taking into account 60