BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF
SWIG v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 307/02)
JUDGMENT
(Striking-out)
STRASBOURG
11
January 2007
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of SWIG v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs N.
Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K.
Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 7 December 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 307/02) against the Russian
Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by Nevsko-Baltiyskaya Transportnaya
Kompaniya (NBTK), a limited liability company based in Russia and
SWIG Group Inc., a company incorporated in the USA (“the
applicant”), on 6 August 2001.
- NBTK
and the applicant were represented by Mr B. Karhu, a lawyer
practising in St. Petersburg and in
Helsinki. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Mr P. Laptev,
Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of
Human Rights.
- The
applicant alleged under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to
the Convention that there had been a violation of their right to the
peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, namely the commercial cargo
which was seized by the customs and have not been returned or
compensated for.
- By
a decision of 23 March 2006, the Court declared the application
admissible in respect of the applicant and inadmissible in respect of
NBTK.
- The
Government, but not the applicant, filed further written observations
(Rule 59 § 1).
THE FACTS
- In
February 1999 NBTK, a transport company, carried a commercial cargo
for its commercial client from Kotka, Finland, to Moscow. The
North-Western Customs Office examined the lorry, stated that it
contained undeclared goods and seized the cargo and the lorry. On
17 February 1999 NBTK was charged with an administrative offence
of a breach of the customs regulations.
- On
12 April 1999 the Leningrad-Finlyandskaya Prosecutor's Office
opened criminal case file no. 44437 concerning the alleged
smuggling, which on 14 June 1999 was suspended as no suspect
could be identified. The attached goods were ordered to be sold, with
the proceeds to be held as deposit until the case concerning the
customs breach was decided.
- On
3 August 1999 the applicant bought the seized goods knowing that they
were under injunction.
- Thereafter
the administrative charges against NBTK were lifted, but there the
criminal proceedings remained suspended, and the injunction related
thereto continued to apply.
THE LAW
- By
letter of 29 March 2006 the Court informed the applicant of the
partial admissibility decision and requested it to answer, by 23 May
2006, the Court's specific questions concerning the case and to
submit such additional evidence and observations it wished to put
before the Court. In the same letter the applicant was also asked to
submit its claims for just satisfaction and its position regarding
the question of reaching a friendly settlement in the case. The
applicant did not reply.
- On
29 May 2006 the applicant was informed that the above time limit had
been extended, upon the Government's request, until 23 June 2006.
- By
registered letter of 10 July 2006, also sent by fax on 11 July 2006,
the Court reiterated its requests and warned the applicant that its
failure to reply might lead to the application being struck out of
the Court's list of cases. The applicant's representative received
the fax and the letter but no reply followed.
- On
4 October 2006 the applicant's representative contacted the Court and
confirmed that his client had been aware of the Court's requests but
he had not been instructed to reply or to take other procedural
steps.
- In these circumstances, having regard to Article 37 §
1 (a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the applicant does
not intend to pursue the petition. Furthermore, the Court finds no
reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in
fine, which would require the examination of the application.
- Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the
list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the case out of the list.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 January 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
