THIRD SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 72145/01
by OOO TORGOVYI DOM “POLITEKS”
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 July 2003 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrP. Kūris,
MrB. Zupančič,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 October 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, OOO Torgovyi Dom “Politeks” is a limited-liability company registered in Moscow. It is represented before the Court by Mr D.V. Lyzlov.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant company, may be summarised as follows.
1. Seizure of goods
On 15 July 1999 Mr Lyzlov was accompanying a consignment of goods belonging to the applicant company. He was stopped by a police patrol and taken to a police station. In the course of an interrogation, the police discovered that the applicant company stored its goods in a warehouse in Odintsovo. They went there and sealed the warehouse up. The police did not serve any documents concerning the seizure and the applicant company’s representatives were not allowed to visit the warehouse.
On 27 October 1999 the police loaded the goods into trucks and removed them from the warehouse. The police gave no explanation for their actions, and the goods have been missing ever since. Later, the goods were spotted on sale in Moscow markets.
On 26 November 1999 the police started criminal proceedings against Mr Lyzlov on charges of fraud and forgery of documents.
On 19 October 1999 Mr Lyzlov filed a complaint on behalf of the applicant company to the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow. He maintained that the police had unlawfully seized the goods, that the goods had been plundered, and that the criminal charges against him had been unfounded.
On 25 February 2000 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court dismissed the complaint. It found that the police had lawfully seized the goods in the course of the investigation of an allegation of a Mr Z. that the goods had, in fact, been his, not the applicant company’s. The police had lawfully formalised the storage of the goods and appointed warehouse staff responsible for the goods’ safety.
On appeal, this decision was upheld by the Moscow City Court on 25 April 2000.
Later, the criminal investigation against Mr Lyzlov was stopped.
2. Proceedings against the prosecutor’s office
In the course of the proceedings described above, the applicant company made a number of complaints to the public prosecutor’s office of the Central Administrative District of Moscow.
The applicant company was not satisfied with the way its complaints had been dealt with and, in particular, that the prosecutor’s office had not allowed access to the material of their investigation. For this reason, it made a complaint about the prosecutor’s office to the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow.
On 21 June 2000 the complaint was dismissed on the grounds that the applicant company’s allegation had proved to be unfounded and that a mere disagreement with the outcome of the investigation had not suggested negligence on the part of the prosecutor’s office.
On 22 November 2001 the Moscow City Court examined the applicant company’s appeal. It ruled that the first-instance court should not have considered the complaint at all because the actions complained about had been outside the scope of criminal proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
1. Invoking Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant company complains about the seizure of the goods and the outcome of the proceedings before the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow.
2. With regard to the proceedings before the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow, the applicant company complains that it failed to obtain a fair ruling against the prosecutor’s office and that the appeal court did not examine the substance of its appeal. It refers to Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7.
THE LAW
1. The applicant company complains that the police unlawfully seized and plundered its goods. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which reads as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant company also complains about the conduct and the outcome of its complaint against the prosecutor’s office.
However, having regard to all material in its possession, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the seizure and non-return of goods;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy