EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION / Alla Tymofeyeva (ed.)

CASE STUDY Appeal

Since August 1995 the applicant had been making plans for the construction of a building containing 30 apartments on 0,25 hectares of land situated in the village of Z., in the K. District of the Kh. region. It alleged that it received all the necessary construction permits and concluded an agreement with the PMK-35 company (a private company; “PMK-35”) for construction of this building. On 4 October 1996 the Regional Arbitration Court declared null and void the construction contract of 9 August 1995 concluded between the applicant and the PMK-35 (PMK-35 was later reorganised into the construction company “Kam Ltd.”). The applicant alleges that from November 1996 it was allegedly persecuted by the authorities for its attempt to construct the building. Allegedly as a result of this persecution, PMK-35 demolished the foundation of the building it was supposed to construct. In 1996–2001 the applicant was a respondent and / or plaintiff in unsuccessful litigation before different courts about the building. It did not provide a full account of the litigation, and submitted that the only proceedings of which it complains were the proceedings initiated by it on 24 January 2002 before the Regional Commercial Court. These proceedings were instituted by the applicant against the PMK-35. However, on 14 February 2002 the Regional Commercial Court (“Kh. Court”), changed the respondent to the construction company “Kam Ltd.” (hereinafter the “respondent”) as the successor of PMK-35. The applicant sought restitutio in integrum . In particular, it claimed that, as the respondent had demolished the building’s foundations constructed by PMK-35, it was obliged to rebuild it. On 20 August 2002 the Kh. Court rejected the applicant’s claims as the events about which the applicant complained dated back to 1996. It therefore considered that they were lodged outside the three-year statutory time-limit for the introduction of civil claims, envisaged by Article 71 of the Civil Code. On 19 November 2002 the L. Regional Commercial Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal as being unsubstantiated and upheld the judgment of 20 August 2002. On 16 March 2003 the Higher Commercial Court quashed the aforementioned judgment of 20 August and the ruling of 19 November 2002 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the Kh. Court. On 5 March 2003 the Kh. Court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the applicant’s case. In the course of the new proceedings before the Kh. Court, the applicant asked the court to extend the three-year limitation period for lodging its claims against the respondent. It also requested the court to suspend or temporarily terminate the proceedings in its case in view of the criminal investigation pending against the respondent’s director. It lodged additional claims for compensation against the respondent. Initially, the applicant claimed that the damage amounted to EUR 4000. Later, it increased its claims to EUR 43 000. On 31 March, 15 April and 10 June 2003 the Kh. Court ordered the applicant to produce substantiation for the amounts it claimed in damages. It also required the applicant to pay the State tax for the introduction of its additional claims. On 23 June 2003 the Kh. Court rejected all of the applicant’s motions and requests as unsubstantiated. As to the increase in the applicant’s claims, the Kh. Court stated that the applicant had failed to substantiate or pay the State tax on them. It further decided that the applicant’s claim should be rejected as it was lodged outside the statutory three-year limitation period (Article 71 of the Civil Code). On 11 December 2003 the Regional Commercial Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal as unsubstantiated, and upheld the judgment of 23 June 2003. In particular, it referred

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION

39