FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8433/02
by OOO KB ALBA ALYANS
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12 January 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev, judges,
and MrS. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 February 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, OOO KB Alba Alyans, is a private bank registered in Moscow.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date in October 1998 the applicant company brought proceedings in commercial courts seeking recovery of USD 34,000,000 from another private company and contract penalties of USD 434,347.46.
On 12 November 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted into the allegations that the applicant company attempted to defraud another private company.
On 17 November 1998 the Commercial Court of Moscow rejected the applicant’s claims.
On 11 January 1999 the Appeal Section of the Commercial Court of Moscow upheld the judgment of 17 November 1998.
On 16 February 1999 the Federal Commercial Court of the Moscow Circuit acting as a third (cassation) instance reversed both court decisions and granted the applicant’s claims in full. This court decision became final and enforceable on the same date.
On 18 February 1999 the defendant company applied to the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia for supervisory review.
On 22 February 1999 the Head of the Chief Directorate of the Interior of Moscow (начальник Главного управления внутренних дел г. Москвы) wrote to the President of the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia, asking for suspension of the enforcement proceedings regarding the decision of 16 February 1999 taken by the Federal Commercial Court of the Moscow Circuit. He argued that the findings of fact made by the cassation court contradicted the information contained in the criminal case file No. 143065, which had been opened against the applicant company on the allegation of fraud.
On 3 March 1999 the Deputy President of the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia suspended the execution of the cassation decision of 16 February 1999 without indicating the period of suspension.
On 19 March 1999 the Deputy President of the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia lodged a supervisory request (protest) against the decision of 16 February 1999.
On 21 August 2001 the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia quashed the cassation decision of 16 February 1999 and reinstated in legal force the decision of 17 November 1998 as upheld on 11 January 1999. The Presidium stated that the cassation court incorrectly applied domestic law, had not referred to applicable laws when repealing the previous decision taken in the case, and therefore its judgment was unfounded.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention that the award made in its favour was subsequently quashed by way of supervisory review.
2. The applicant further complained that the time taken to determine its case had exceeded the “reasonable time” guaranteed by Article 6. It referred in particular to the period of two and a half years when the case had been pending before the supervisory instance.
3. The applicant alleged that the decision to quash was not sufficiently reasoned.
4. Finally, the applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that it had not been notified of the hearing of 21 August 2001 only on 17 August 2001, and therefore it did not have enough time to prepare its position to be advanced before the supervisory court.
THE LAW
The Court notes that on 13 September 2005 the applicant was informed that notice of the application had been given to the respondent Government.
On 6 October 2005 the applicant company sent a letter informing the Registry that they had lost interest in pursuing the application before the Court.
By reference to Article 37 §§ 1(a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the case should be struck out of its list of cases. The Court finds no particular reasons concerning respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, which would require further examination of the present application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy