48
UNIYA OOO AND BELCOURT TRADING COMPANY v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
authority within criminal proceedings but not by actions described in
Article 1070, Article 1069 of the Civil Code applies. Article 1069 provides
for liability of the State Treasury for damage caused to an individual or a
legal person by an unlawful action or inaction by a State authority or
official. Article 1069 does not provide for strict liability; consequently, the
liability of the State arises where the impugned act was, first, unlawful, and,
second, where there was a “fault” on the part of the State authority or
official concerned.
THE LAW
I. PRELIMINARY ISSUES
A. The Government’s request for the case to be discontinued
258. The Court observes that the first applicant company (Uniya) ceased
to exist in 2011. The Government claimed that following its liquidation the
first applicant company’s application should be struck out of the list of
cases before the Court. The Government maintained that the Court cannot
examine a case in the absence of a victim of the alleged violation. Following
the liquidation of OOO Uniya its rights and obligations were extinguished;
consequently, it has no successor to pursue proceedings in its stead and
claim just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention.
259. The Court observes that it is undisputed between the parties that the
first applicant company existed at the time application no. 4437/03 was
lodged, on 28 December 2002, that the case on behalf of that company was
properly introduced, and that the company was still in existence, at least
formally, on the day its application was declared admissible by the Court
(7 October 2010). In the Court’s opinion, the fact that after its decisions on
admissibility the first applicant company was liquidated does not call for its
application to be struck out of the Court’s list of cases under Article 37
§ 1 (a) to (c), for the following reasons.
260. The Court reiterates that in cases which, as is the case with the one
at hand, primarily involve pecuniary claims, they can be transferred to other
persons, namely their legal successors (see Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria,
no. 49429/99, § 78, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts)). In addition, the case may
be pursued even in the absence of successors where respect for human rights
so requires, because of the “moral dimension” of human rights cases before
the Court (ibid.)
261. As regards the first criterion (transferability of claims to
successors) the Court notes that the claims forwarded by the first applicant
company against the State were essentially of a pecuniary character. By
UNIYA OOO AND BELCOURT TRADING COMPANY v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
49
their very nature they were “transferable”, as well as any award which the
domestic courts made in respect of those claims, or the award under
Article 41 which the Court may make in this case if a violation of the
Convention is found.
262. The Court also reiterates that in the case of Metalco Bt. v. Hungary
(revision, no. 34976/05, §§ 13 and 14, 26 June 2012), the loss of legal
personality by the applicant company shortly before the adoption of the
judgment did not deprive the applicant company of locus standi before the
Court. In that case the Court also noted that under the relevant rules of
Hungarian insolvency law, the award, once paid by the Government, would
fall under the provisions governing property distribution proceedings. In
Metalco Bt. the Government did not object to the continuation of the
proceedings. In the present case, by contrast, the Government did object;
however, in the Court’s opinion, the cases cannot be distinguished on that
ground. Whether the Government has or has not objected is relevant only
where it is unclear who had the power to represent the legal entity in
liquidation before the Court – its managers, shareholders, receivers, or
others. In the present case no such question arose.
263. The Court further notes that the company had a shareholder. Even
if, in domestic terms, the first applicant company’s obligations and claims
were formally extinguished after its liquidation, the dispute before Court
under the Convention remains unresolved, and the company’s successor has
a legitimate interest in obtaining a final determination of that case by the
Court (see for comparison RF spol. s.r.o. v. Slovakia (dec.), 9926/03,
20 October 2010).
264. As regards the second criterion (“respect for human rights”) the
Court notes that one of the central complaints of the applicant companies
was their protracted inability to obtain compensation for the alcohol seized
and destroyed by the authorities in 1998-2011. If the case is struck out now,
without examination of the applicant companies’ claims on the merits, it
may appear that the authorities might have benefited from their own
wrongdoing, if any. In addition, the case raises questions of general interest
concerning the power of the authorities to seize and destroy property within
criminal proceedings, which transcends the facts of the present case and the
applicant companies’ private interest.
265. The Court concludes that it may continue the examination of
application no. 4437/03 on the basis of the submissions on the merits
prepared by Ms Alekseyenkova (the lawyer for the first applicant company
who represented it until its liquidation).
266. As regards the second applicant company, the Court notes that it
changed its place of registration. The Government did not claim in express
terms that its being registered in Belize prevented the Court from examining
the application introduced by it when it was registered in Ireland and the
United States. Furthermore, Belcourt has continued to participate in the