23. The Court holds that the said text talks of "toute personne victime" without stating whether it is a question of natural person or legal person, or still, whether it is the two at the same time; but the Court would like to emphasise, moreover, that the word ???victime", and more precisely the concept of "victime" enables one to understand that it is a question of adjudicating on complaints from any person who may claim that he/it has been harmed or that he/it has suffered from violation of his/its recognised rights to freedom. 24. Whereas, if it is trite that rights and freedoms guaranteed by international instruments r elating to human rights are so made for individuals, it is nonetheless the case that legal persons equally have rights they can claim. The Court recalls that there is abundant case-law in support of this view, among which it cites the following: 25. As regards limited companies: - Case concerning STRAN AND STRATIS ANDREADIS GREEK REFINERIES V. GREECE: Stran, a fuel refinery company, brought a case before the European Court of Human Rights, for having been denied fair hearing within a reasonable time-limit in a national case between it and Greece for violation of its right to property In its Judgment delivered on 9 December 1994, Series A, No. 301-B, the Court entertained the application of the said company, and granted its request. - Case concerning AUTRONIC AG V SWITZERLAND: In an application filed before the European Court on 13th December, 1988, Autronic AG Company alleged ignorance of its right to receive information, as a right guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention. Before the European Court of Human Rights, Switzerland claimed that freedom of expression and the right to receive information are only guaranteed to individuals and not to corporate bodies, on the grounds that Article 10 × Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. of the Convention provides that "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless offiontiers". On 22nd May, 1990, the Court held, in regard to this matter, that: "neither its legal status as a limited company nor the fact that its activities were commercial nor the intrinsic nature of freedom of expression could deprive Autronic of the protection of Article 10 of the Convention. This article applies to "everyone", whether natural or legal persons, and concerns not only the content of the information but also the means of transmission and reception. Reception of television programmes by means of an aerial comes within the right laid down in Article 10-1. There was an interference with the exercise of the freedom of expression". 26. As regards associations: - Case concerning PLATTFORM ERZE FUR DAS LEBEN V AUSTRIA: 21 June 1988, Series A, No 139 or Series E No 35. Plattform Erze Fur das Leben is an association of doctors campaigning against abortion who filed a case before the European Court against Austria for being denied the necessary protection during two demonstrations organised by the said association, which were violently disrupted. The Applicant Association invoked violation of Articles 9 4