66
UNIYA OOO AND BELCOURT TRADING COMPANY v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
domestic courts were uncertain as to the moment when that remedy could be
used and the person who might bring such complaints.
328. Thus, when Mr Golovkin brought a complaint under Article 125
about the seizure and destruction of the first consignment, the Baltiyskiy
District Court dismissed the complaint primarily because (a) criminal
proceedings against Mr Golovkin were still pending and (b) his personal
property had not been affected by the seizure and destruction, so he had no
standing to complain about the investigator’s actions (see the decision of
17 June 2003, confirmed on appeal on 22 July 2003 by the Kaliningrad
Regional Court, cited in paragraphs 36 et seq. above).
329. When a complaint in similar terms was lodged by Belcourt in 2003,
it was returned without examination, on the ground that Belcourt had not
been a party to the criminal proceedings against Mr Golovkin and others
(see the letter of the Baltiyskiy District Court of 16 June 2003, paragraph 44
above).
330. Some of the decisions of the commercial courts can also be
interpreted as suggesting that complaints concerning the seizure and
destruction of the alcohol could not be determined before the completion of
the criminal proceedings in Mr Golovkin’s case (see paragraph 55 above).
331. In contrast, all complaints by Mr Golovkin under Article 125 of the
CCrP concerning the seizures of the second consignment were examined on
the merits and dismissed in 1999-2002 (see above, the sections starting with
paragraphs 125, 133, and 143). Similarly, when Uniya complained about the
destruction of the second consignment, that complaint was examined on the
merits and dismissed by the Baltiyskiy District Court on 22 October 2004
(see paragraph 150 above), before the end of the criminal proceedings in
Mr Golovkin’s case.
332. Finally, the decision of 22 October 2004 concerning the second
consignment contained mutually exclusive findings. In that decision the
Baltiyskiy District Court held that the seizure of the alcohol had been lawful
and, at the same time, stated that it was premature to rule on the issue of
physical evidence before the end of the criminal proceedings in
Mr Golovkin’s case (see paragraph 150 above).
333. The Court reiterates that as early as 1999 the Consitutional Court
established a rule under which a third party whose rights were affected by a
decision of the investigating authorities was enabled to challenge those
decisions in court, and that such a complaint had to be examined
independently of the main criminal proceedings and without waiting for
those proceedings to end (see paragraph 249 above).
334. The Court notes that in the proceedings concerning the second
consignment, the courts seemed to follow that rule: thus, the complaints
under Article 125 were determined on the merits without waiting for the
outcome of the proceedings in Mr Golovkin’s case (see, for example, the
decision of 22 October 2004 by the Baltiyskiy District Court,
UNIYA OOO AND BELCOURT TRADING COMPANY v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
67
paragraph 150; see also paragraphs 125, 133, and 143 above). In contrast,
complaints under Article 125 concerning the first consignment were not
examined before the end of the criminal proceedings in Mr Golovkin’s case.
In addition, the courts denied Mr Golovkin or Belcourt the right to bring
such complaints without explaining who else, if not the owner or the
defendant in the criminal case, would have such a right.
335. The Court notes that the proceedings in the case of Mr Golovkin
lasted over seven years. That situation gave rise to a finding of a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the case of Golovkin v. Russia
(no. 16595/02, §§ 35 and 44, 3 April 2008). For all that period the applicant
companies were precluded from challenging, under Article 125 of the CCrP,
the lawfulness of the investigator’s actions concerning the first consignment
of alcohol. The Court stresses that the decisions to seize and destroy the
alcohol were taken by the investigator alone, without any involvement of
the interested parties and without any prior judicial inquiry. The same
investigating authority which had ordered the seizure and destruction of the
alcohol also conducted criminal proceedings against Mr Golovkin.
Consequently, by protracting those proceedings the investigator delayed the
examination of the lawfulness of his own actions, and thus evaded their
effective review. This situation was aggravated by the fact that the
unlawfulness of the investigator’s actions has already been acknowledged
by the “special ruling” issued under Article 21.2 of the CCrP; however, the
commercial courts refused to consider it as a proper “declaration of
unlawfulness” required under the domestic law.
336. The Government did not propose any rationale behind those
procedural barriers which delayed examination of the applicant companies’
tort claims. It also appears that the Russian courts themselves were not sure
about the correct interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Russian
law. Having regard to what was at stake for the applicant companies, the
Court concludes that those procedural barriers were unjustified.
337. On account of the Government’s non-exhaustion plea, the Court
observes that it does not see what other remedies the applicant companies
might have used to defend their rights and obtain determination of their
claims earlier or more efficiently. The Court considers that the
Government’s objection must be dismissed.
338. On the merits, the Court observes that destruction of the first
consignment was declared unlawful within Article 125 proceedings (see the
decision of 25 November 2005 by the Leningradskiy District Court). That
decision opened the way for tort proceedings against the State under
Article 1069 of the Civil Code, which lasted for several years and ended in
2010-2011 (see paragraphs 77 and 108 above).
339. Thus, whereas the applicant companies eventually succeeded in
obtaining a final determination of their claims towards the State, the Court
should not loose sight of the fact that both applicant companies were