18
UNIYA OOO AND BELCOURT TRADING COMPANY v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
70. Second, the District Court held that “unlawfulness of the actions of
the investigative authorities must be established in the manner provided by
the CCrP”. The District Court added that the decision to destroy the alcohol
had been taken by the Alcohol Commission and not by the investigator. The
District Court concluded that there had been no causal link between the
actions of the investigator and the loss of the alcohol.
71. In conclusion, the District Court held that it was impossible to
consider that complaint under the provisions of Chapter 18 of the CCrP.
However, in the operative part the District Court concluded that the second
applicant’s company tort claim must be “rejected”.
72. On 9 September 2008 that judgment was confirmed by the
Kaliningrad Regional Court.
(β) Second round
73. On 15 February 2010 the Presidium of the Kaliningrad Regional
Court quashed the judgment of the Baltiyskiy District Court of 22 July
2008, which had been upheld on 9 September 2008, and remitted the case to
the first-instance court for fresh examination. The Presidium indicated that
such claims were to be examined under Chapter 18 of the CCrP.
74. On 7 April 2010 the Baltiyskiy District Court re-examined the
second applicant company’s tort claim and rejected it on the merits. The
Baltiyskiy District Court held that the seizure of the alcohol had not been
declared unlawful “in the manner defined by the applicable law”. The fact
that the Leningradskiy District Court had declared that the investigator’s
decision to send the alcohol to the Alcohol Commission had been unlawful
was irrelevant. The decision to destroy the alcohol had been taken not by the
investigator but by the Alcohol Commission. The Alcohol Commission’s
decision has not been challenged by the second applicant company. The
District Court concluded that there was no causal link between the actions
of the investigator and the alleged damage caused by the destruction of the
alcohol.
75. On 18 May 2010 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the
judgment of 7 April 2010 on appeal.
(γ) Third round
76. On 8 November 2010 the Presidium of the Kaliningrad Regional
Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions and remitted the case for fresh
consideration. The Presidium noted that the alcohol seized by the
investigator had not been properly attached to the case as an item of
“physical evidence” (physical evidence). The Presidium noted that on
25 November 2005 the Leningradskiy District Court had found that the
investigator’s decision of 26 January 1999 was unlawful. The Presidium
noted that the alcohol had been destroyed as a direct result of the unlawful
decision of 26 January 1999, and that no other option than destruction had
UNIYA OOO AND BELCOURT TRADING COMPANY v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
19
been provided for. Consequently, the lower courts’ conclusion that there had
been no causal link between the actions of the investigator and the loss of
the alcohol was dubious.
77. On 28 December 2010 the Baltiyskiy District Court allowed the tort
claim of the second applicant company in part. The second applicant
company was represented in the proceedings by Mr Golovkin.
78. The District Court established that Belcourt was the lawful owner of
the alcohol, and defined its price on the basis of the original contracts of
importation, at USD 7.25 per bottle. The District Court noted that the
defendant (the Ministry of Finance) did not contest that price. Having
examined primary documents, the District Court established that in toto
Belcourt had been deprived of 337,104 litres of alcohol.
79. In order to compensate for inflation-related losses, the District Court
decided to apply the United States dollar exchange rate on the day of the
judgment. The final amount the Ministry of Finance was to pay in
compensation to the second company was RUB 74,418,700. That decision
was not appealed against and entered into legal force.
80. On 14 March 2011 the writ of execution issued in the name of the
second applicant company was received by the Ministry of Finance.
However, the Ministry twice refused to enforce it, referring to various
procedural irregularities: first because the applicant company had failed to
indicate a bank account, and second because the bank account indicated was
in a foreign bank, whereas under the applicable rule the Ministry could only
transfer money to a bank operating on the territory of the Russian
Federation.
81. According to the second applicant, on 5 April 2012 the amount
awarded by the Baltiyskiy District Court was transferred to its account.
82. On 28 May 2012 the Moskovskiy District Court, Kaliningrad (“the
Moskovskiy District Court”) awarded the second applicant company
RUB 596,242 on account of inflation losses relating to prolonged
non-enforcement of the judgment of 28 December 2010. In the proceedings
before the Moskovskiy District Court the applicant company was
represented by Mr Golovkin.
83. On 27 November 2012 the amount of RUB 596,242 was transferred
to Belcourt’s bank account.
(b) Tort claims of Uniya against the State concerning the seizure and
destruction of 120,317 bottles of alcohol
(i) Tort claim by Uniya in the commercial courts
(α) First round
84. In 2000 the first applicant company (Uniya) brought civil
proceedings against the police department in charge of the criminal case