20
UNIYA OOO AND BELCOURT TRADING COMPANY v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
against Mr Golovkin, claiming damages for unlawful seizure and
destruction of 120,377 bottles, constituting part of the first consignment.
85. On 23 July 2001 the Kaliningrad Region Commercial Court decided
in favour of Uniya, stating that the alcohol at issue had been unlawfully
seized and destroyed (case no. 4943/1968/1). The Commercial Court found
that the alcohol belonged to the first applicant company. The alcohol had
passed customs clearance. Its price thus corresponded to its “customs value”
declared to the authorities at the border. The expert examination of the
alcohol of 14 August 1998 had been defective in many respects and thus
unreliable. Its findings had been discarded by an independent expert
examination of 25 May 2000. Uniya had been operating without a special
licence because in 1998 there had been no requirement to obtain a licence
for the importation of alcohol. The court awarded Uniya the damages sought
(RUB 25,930,253), to be recovered from the Ministry of Internal
Affairs. On 10 October 2001 the appeal court upheld that judgment.
86. On 20 December 2001 the North-West Circuit Commercial Court
quashed the lower courts’ judgments and remitted the case to the
first-instance court for fresh consideration. The court rejected the
defendant’s argument that the commercial courts did not have jurisdiction to
examine the case; however, the court suggested that the proceedings should
be stayed pending the criminal investigation. It also noted that the issue of
the ownership of the alcohol was not clear.
87. On 12 March 2002 the Kaliningrad Region Commercial Court
re-examined the case and again upheld Uniya’s claims. The Commercial
Court concluded, inter alia, that the civil dispute before it could be resolved
independently of the criminal proceedings pending against Mr Golovkin. In
particular, the criminal proceedings did not aim to establish whether the
contract for sale of the first consignment between Uniya and Belcourt had
been null and void within the meaning of the Civil Code. On the contrary,
the court considered that the sale contract had been entered into by duly
authorised persons, and that the parties had begun implementing it, declared
the alcohol at the border, paid customs duties, and so on. The contract was
therefore valid. The fact that Uniya had no direct contractual relationship
with the firms which had produced the alcohol was immaterial. Therefore,
Uniya was the legitimate owner of the 120,377 bottles of alcohol seized by
the police investigator. As regards the quality of the alcohol, the expert
examination of 14 August 1998 had been unreliable from the scientific point
of view. Furthermore, the serial numbers of the bottle labels described in the
expert report did not correspond to those of the bottles imported by the
applicant company. The Commercial Court also noted that in 1998 that type
of alcohol could be imported without any special licence. In conclusion, the
court allowed the applicant company’s claim in full, awarding it
RUB 27,482,321 in damages. The defendant appealed.
UNIYA OOO AND BELCOURT TRADING COMPANY v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
21
88. On 6 November 2003 the Kaliningrad Region Commercial Court,
sitting as a court of appeal, quashed the lower court’s judgment. The court
stated that the alleged unlawfulness of the seizure could only be established
in the course of the criminal proceedings. The reasoning of the court in that
case was almost identical to the reasoning of the same court in the case of
the second applicant company, as stated in the decision of 15 November
2002.
89. On 24 February 2004 the North-West Circuit Commercial Court
upheld the judgment of the appeal court rejecting the first applicant
company’s claims in full.
(β) Second round
90. On 7 December 2005 the first applicant company lodged an
application with the Thirteenth District Commercial Court (appeal court)
seeking the reopening of the proceedings on the grounds of newly
discovered circumstances. On 14 March 2006 the Commercial Court
rejected the application.
91. On 14 June 2006 the North-West Circuit, sitting as a court of appeal
on points of law, quashed the decision of 14 March 2006 and remitted the
case to the appeal court for fresh consideration.
92. On 15 January 2007 the Thirteenth District Commercial Court
examined the claims anew. The first applicant company’s claims against the
State were dismissed in full. The first applicant company appealed. On
16 April 2007 the North-West Circuit Commercial Court examined the
appeal on points of law against the decision of 15 January 2007 and upheld
it.
93. In its judgment the Commercial Court referred to the decision of
3 September 2002 of the Leningradskiy District Court, which had found that
the decision to seize and destroy the alcohol had been taken by the
investigator and the Alcohol Commission within their powers.
94. The plaintiff (Uniya) claimed that the first consignment of alcohol
belonged to it. The Commercial Court acknowledged that customs
declarations, transportation documents and other documentary evidence
showed that the alcohol had been imported by Uniya. However, later Uniya
had informed the Commercial Court that the right to claim compensation for
the seizure had been reassigned by Uniya to two other companies: DIVO
Ltd and Belcourt.
95. The Commercial Court further endorsed the findings of the
investigator in his decision of 26 January 1999, in particular as regards the
return of the consignment to Belcourt and the description of the alcohol as
“undrinkable”.
96. According to the appeal court decision of 20 March 2001, some of
the alcohol had been sold to retail shops not by Uniya but by Dionis Ltd, a