So welcome to all of you. My name is Mian Feng and I'm a doctoral student at FAU. In the following,

I will present a summary of research on possible human rights holders in the European human rights

system. First, I would like to provide you some historical and political background of the

convention starting with the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe was founded in Strasbourg

as a Cold War initiative to prevent another war between West European states. The member states

wanted to provide a declaration of common values contrasting sharply with Soviet-style communism.

The member states created accounts for political purposes, in particular to promote a European

unity with shared Western values like individual dignity, democracy, and the rule of law.

And for that reason, they also implement the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms. And this treaty is based on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The convention was signed in 1950 and entered into force in 1953 and is legally binding for all 47

member states. And an important body is the European Court of Human Rights, which ensures

the observance of the convention. Next is a quick overview about the different concepts of human

rights holders concerning two companies. The drafters of the convention always intended to

include business entities within the protective ambit of the convention. Article 34 of the convention

regulates the individual application of any person, non-governmental organization,

or group of individuals. And companies fall under the term non-governmental organization.

The term is defined in several case law and I picked one of the latest ones, Slovenia versus

Croatia, an intergovernmental dispute. So non-governmental organizations are governed essentially by

company law, don't enjoy any governmental or other powers, are subject to the jurisdiction of the

ordinary rather than the administrative courts, and they're carrying out commercial activities.

And at this point, it is already to mention that the case law on companies is quite extensive.

In regard to the people, it is first to acknowledge that the court don't talk about collective rights.

So the drafters weren't aware about this issue, weren't in the drafting process,

and yes, and the convention as such does not guarantee rights that are specific to minorities.

Only article 14, which statutes the prohibition of discrimination, mentions national minority.

In addition, there's no definition and scope of the term minority and if indigenous people fall

under the term. In comparison to companies or to the case law on companies, the case law on indigenous

people is quite little intimate because of the little number of indigenous communities in Europe.

But on the other hand, the case law on cultural, ethnic, and religious minority is numerous,

and the court have afforded some protection to minorities, notably the right to family life,

the right to freedom of religion, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to freedom

of association. So from the case law, it can be seen that these were actions of individuals and

not of a collective. Other instruments to protect minorities are the European Charter for a Regional

or Minority Language or the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

So one question which still need to be answered is, are these instruments and existing case law

are enough to protect indigenous people? So can indigenous people be understood as minorities like

an ethnic or national minority? Because one issue is that indigenous people don't identify

themselves as minorities. Anyway, it would be interesting, it's interesting to have a look at

the existing case law on indigenous people concerning the access to protection system.

In general, indigenous people have access to the European protection system. They are treated

as a group of individuals under Article 34. But the main issue is that most of the cases were

dismissed because they didn't satisfy the formal admissibility requirements and therefore didn't

reach the merits of the claims. Reasons are, for instance, it is difficult to prove the victim status

in regard to property rights. Question of property rights is decided with a traditional civil law

approach without recognizing the applicant's indigenous status or their historical connection

to the land. So, and another point is that most of the claims don't fulfill the exhaustion of

domestic remedies and the court refers back to the national laws and jurisdiction.

And the mostly claimed rights so far are Article 1, of Protocol 1, the right to property,

the right to fair trial and the respect for home. So in conclusion, you can say that the convention