10 34. Even though the European system provides protection to legal persons, the case law of the European Court has also developed a series of exceptions that provide protection to the individuals who form part of the legal persons as presumed victims; for example, in their capacity as company shareholders or partners. However, this relates to an exceptional situation, insofar as the legal persons are protected by the European Convention in light of Protocol No. 1. Among these exceptions, the European Court has not taken into account the legal personality of the company, but has focused its analysis, when declaring possible violations of shareholders’ rights, on the companies being vehicles to execute the purpose of the company or undertaking.48 35. In the cases of Agrotexim and Others v. Greece,49 AD Capital Bank v. Bulgaria50 and Camberrow MM5 AD v. Bulgaria,51 the European Court defined the first exception for the protection of the shareholders who form part of a company. It considered that when shareholders suffer unlawful interference or violation of their right to property, it was possible to apply to the system for the protection of human rights without taking into account the legal personality of the company; and that this exception was justifiable when, owing to the circumstances of the case, it was clearly established that it was impossible for the company to lodge a petition to the institutions of the Convention through the organs created in the corporate charter, in the case of liquidation by its liquidators, or by the trustees in the case of bankruptcy.52 36. A second scenario identified by the Strasbourg Court arose in the cases of Groppera Case of Piney Valley Developments Ltd. and Others v. Ireland, No. 12742, November 29, 1991, para.42 and Case of Eugenia Michaelidou Developments LTD and Michael Tymios v. Turkey, No. 16163/90, July 31, 2003, para. 21. 48 In August 1982, the National Bank of Greece ceased financing Fix Brewery. As the company's business continued to decline, the shareholders' general meeting decided on 30 August 1983 to wind up the company and appointed two liquidators. The companies Agrotexim, Viotex, Hymofix, Kykladiki and Texem were shareholders in Fix Brewery. In the first place, when the applicant companies lodged their application with the Commission in 1988, Fix Brewery, although in the process of liquidation, had not ceased to exist as a legal person. The Court considered that it was at that time represented by its two liquidators, who had legal capacity to defend its rights. There is no evidence to suggest that at the material time it would have been impossible as a matter of fact or of law for the liquidators to do so. The Court noted further that there was no reason to suppose that the liquidators failed to perform their duties satisfactorily. On the contrary, there was sufficient evidence to show that they took all the measures that they considered to be in the interests of the insolvent company's assets. In sum it was not clearly established that at the time when the application was lodged with the Commission it was not possible for Fix Brewery to apply through its liquidators to the Convention institutions in respect of the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which was the basis of the applicant companies' complaint. It followed that the latter companies could not be regarded as being entitled to apply to the Convention institutions, as shareholder companies composed of individuals. Case of Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, No. 15/1994/462/543, October 24, 1995. 49 In this case, in contrast to the situation in Agrotexim and Others, the European Court considered that the application did not concern a matter in respect of which the trustees could be expected to act in protection of the bank's interests. Therefore, it concluded that there was a clear conflict of interest between the bank and the trustees, who had been appointed in view of the bank’s liquidation, making it unfeasible for the bank to apply to the Court through them. Consequently, the Court concluded that to hold that the trustees alone were authorized to represent the bank in lodging an application with the Court would be to render the right of individual petition conferred by Article 34 (individual applications) theoretical and illusory. Case of AD Capital Bank v. Bulgaria, No. 49429/99, First Section- Admissibility, September 9, 2004. 50 The Court considered that because of the conflict of interests between the company and its special administrators and trustees it was not possible for the bank itself to bring the case before the European Court. Moreover, the Court recalled that the applicant held a substantial shareholding of 98% in the bank. It was in effect carrying out part of its business through the bank and had, therefore, a direct personal interest in the subject-matter of the application. Therefore, the Court found that in the special circumstances of that case the applicant could claim to be a victim of the alleged violations of the Convention affecting the rights of the bank. Case of Camberrow MM5 AD v. Bulgaria, No. 50357/94, Decision of Admissibility, April 4, 2004. 51 Case of Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, para. 63-71; Case of AD Capital Bank v. Bulgaria, and Case of Camberrow MM5 AD v. Bulgaria, para. 1. 52