CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 juin 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 98 June 2007 OAO Plodovaya Kompaniya v. Russia - 1641/02 Judgment 7.6.2007 [Section I] Article 6 Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Facts : In January 1992 the applicant was set up as a joint-stock company, its memorandum of association providing that it was the successor to the State Foreign Trade Agency “Soyuzplodoimport”. In 1999, the applicant company notified the trademark registration authority that the trademarks of the “Soyuzplodoimport” had changed ownership through succession and consequently obtained trademark certificates in its own name. It subsequently used the trademarks as collateral in a number of commercial transactions with third parties. In 2001, within the framework of the supervisory review proceedings, the courts found that the applicant company had been created as a new entity and declared null and void the provisions on succession made in its memorandum of association.   Law : Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 – The applicant company had not presented any proof of the intention of the State Foreign Trade Agency “Soyuzplodoimport” to convert itself into another company or to reorganise itself so as to separate from its assets in favour of the applicant company. It had never succeeded in having its title to the legal succession established in domestic judicial proceedings. It had had, therefore, no “possessions” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   Article   6 – The applicant company had been defending a claim of corporate succession which had had no basis in domestic law: it followed that it had not had a “civil right” recognisable under domestic law. Therefore, there had been no basis for the rights guaranteed by Article   6 § 1 to arise. Conclusion : no violation (by six votes to one).: no violation   Facts : In January 1992 the applicant was set up as a joint-stock company, its memorandum of association providing that it was the successor to the State Foreign Trade Agency “Soyuzplodoimport”. In 1999, the applicant company notified the trademark registration authority that the trademarks of the “Soyuzplodoimport” had changed ownership through succession and consequently obtained trademark certificates in its own name. It subsequently used the trademarks as collateral in a number of commercial transactions with third parties. In 2001, within the framework of the supervisory review proceedings, the courts found that the applicant company had been created as a new entity and declared null and void the provisions on succession made in its memorandum of association. Law : Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 – The applicant company had not presented any proof of the intention of the State Foreign Trade Agency “Soyuzplodoimport” to convert itself into another company or to reorganise itself so as to separate from its assets in favour of the applicant company. It had never succeeded in having its title to the legal succession established in domestic judicial proceedings. It had had, therefore, no “possessions” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article   6 – The applicant company had been defending a claim of corporate succession which had had no basis in domestic law: it followed that it had not had a “civil right” recognisable under domestic law. Therefore, there had been no basis for the rights guaranteed by Article   6 § 1 to arise. Conclusion : no violation (by six votes to one).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes