12 Russia61 and Roseltrans, Finlease and Myshkin v. Russia,62 the Strasbourg Court considered that a person cannot be considered a victim in the context of proceedings in which he is not a party under the human rights protection system despite being a shareholder or director of the company that is a party to the proceedings.63 39. Moreover, in the case of Meltex LTD and Mesrop Movsesyan v. Armenia,64 it considered that it was not possible to apply to the human rights protection system if the applicant was not a shareholder or legal representative of the company.65 Added to this, in the case of AmatG LTD and Mebaghishvli v. Georgia66 it reached the conclusion that it was not possible to be the provisions of Article 34 of the Convention, according to which the Court could receive applications “from any person … claiming to be the victim of a violation … of the rights set forth in the Convention …,” in this case it was the company to which the sums provided to the company had not been paid. Therefore, the second applicant could not complain about the length of proceedings to which she was not a party, despite the fact that she was one of the shareholders of the company. Case of F Santos LDA and Fachadas v. Portugal, No. 49020/99, September 19, 2000, Admissibility. The Court indicated that, in this case, the applicant had complained of the re-opening of proceedings and the annulment of a final judgment. The Court took note of the difference of opinions regarding who was the real owner of the companies, Kompanyony and Pamir-99. While on the application form of August 28, 2001, the second applicant alleged that he had been “co-owner” of one of the two companies, it his observations on admissibility and merits of August 13, 2004, he affirmed that he had been a director but not the owner of either of the companies. In its oral report during the hearing, the government referred consistently to both companies as belonging to the applicant. However, neither of the parties provided any document proving ownership of the shares of either of the companies. In these circumstances, the identity of the shareholders of the two companies could not be established with sufficient clarity; therefore, the Court was unable to identify the applicant with the company. In addition, the Court noted that the second applicant was not a party to the proceedings in which a final ruling had been issued in favor of the company, Kompanyony, which had subsequently been annulled. Furthermore, there was no evidence in the case file to suggest that the applicant had tried to intervene in the proceedings on an individual basis. Case of Nosov v. Russia, No. 30877/02, October 20, 2005. 61 The European Court noted the government’s observation concerning the authority of Mr. Myshkin to represent Roseltrans. The Court notes further that the application of Roseltrans was signed by Mr. Myshkin as director general of Roseltrans. Similarly, Roseltrans was represented by the same person in the domestic proceedings which ended with the decision of the Lyublinskiy District Court of May 17, 2000, the quashing of which is the subject of the present complaint. The Court noted that Mr. Myshkin was one of plaintiffs in the proceedings in question concerning the decision to liquidate Roseltrans; however, the Court found that such link between the decision to liquidate the company and Mr. Myshkin's interests was not direct enough to conclude that the proceedings in question affected him personally. The mere fact that the domestic courts considered Mr. Myshkin as a legitimate plaintiff did not endow him with victim status under the Convention. Case of Roseltrans, Finlease and Myshkin v. Russia, No. 60974/00, May 27, 2004. 62 Case of F Santos LDA and Fachadas v. Portugal, , para. 1; Case of Nosov v. Russia, para. 2, and Case of Roseltrans, Finlease and Myshkin v. Russia, para. 2; mutatis mutandis, Application No. 436/58, Commission Decision Case of Pires da Silva et al. v. Portugal, No. 19157/91, Decision of the Commission of July 5, 1993. 63 The case originated in an application lodged by a limited liability company, Melmex Ltd and Mr. Mesrop Movseyan. In 1995, the second applicant established and registered the applicant company, which was set up as an independent broadcasting company outside State control. Later, the second applicant created the A1+ television company within the structure of the applicant company; however, it was not a shareholder of the applicant company. In this case, the second applicant did not produce any evidence to show that he was indeed a shareholder of the applicant company, let alone its sole owner. To the contrary, it was the applicant company alone, as a legal entity, which applied for and was denied a license, and was later a party to the relevant court proceedings. In addition, all the decisions of the domestic courts were delivered in respect of the applicant company and not the second applicant, who did not even represent the applicant company in the domestic proceedings. That being so, the Court considered that the application, in so far as it concerned the second applicant, was incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. It therefore limited its examination of the complaints raised in the application to those which concern the applicant company. Case of Meltex LTD and Mesrop Movsesyan v. Armenia, No. 32283/04, June 17, 2008. 64 65 Case Meltex LTD and Mesrop Movsesyan v. Armenia, No. 32283/04, June 17, 2008, para. 67. In this case Amat-G, a limited liability company, acted through the second applicant, its general manager, who represented the company in its relations with third parties and before the domestic courts. The judgment of December 6, 1999, was in favor of the applicant company, not of the second applicant. Consequently, the failure to execute the judgment of December 6, 1999, only had direct effects on the interests of the applicant company. Also, the second applicant did not complain of a violation of his rights as general manager of the applicant company. His complaint was based exclusively on the non-execution of the judgment delivered in favor of “his” company. 66