6.  The applicant, Mr. Sergey Matveyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Arkhangelsk. 7.  In the 1980s the applicant and his spouse, Mrs Matveyeva, organised short-wave radio broadcasts from their home. 8.  On 1 May 1981 their broadcasting was terminated by the authorities. A number of searches were conducted in their flat. 9.  On 12 May 1981 criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr Matveyev. 10.  On 11 August 1981 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of the Arkhangelsk Region convicted Mr Matveyev of forgery of a postal stamp and of having used it to send personal correspondence free of charge, and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. The District Court held, in particular:
“The court finds untenable the argument of the accused [Mr] Matveyev that the postal stamp he took from the radio-technical school ... could not be used for sending correspondence free of charge [since it] was invalid according to Price List no. 125 “Postal Rates and Services”, adopted by the USSR Ministry of Communication and to Decree of the State Committee on Pricing no. 517 of 25 June 1980 [in force from] 1 October 1980 [Прейскурант № 125 «Тарифы и услуги связи», утвержденный Министерством связи СССР введенный в действие с 1 октября 1980 г. и Постановление Госкомцен СССР от 25 июля 1980 г. № 517].
At the time of theft of [the] postal stamp and the subsequent sending of letters with [the use of] the stamp [Mr] Matveyev did not know about the above-mentioned documents and his intent was directed at sending his [personal] correspondence free of charge, [which he did] repeatedly as corroborated by the ... evidence.” 11.  On 25 September 1981 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant served the sentence and was dismissed from his job with a State enterprise. 12.  On 6 October 1999, in supervisory review proceedings, the Presidium of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court reversed Mr Matveyev’s conviction for forgery of a stamp, finding that it had been wrongful as there was no indication that a crime had been committed. The Presidium held:
“The letter of the Head [of the Arkhangelsk postal service] of 10 July 1981 contained in the case file makes clear that the stamp “To be sent free of charge” was used by the postal enterprises for correspondence between radio associations until 1980. [After] the entry into force on 1 October 1980 of Price List no. 125 “Postal Rates and Services”, correspondence free of charge between short-wave radio broadcasters was permitted only on the basis of postal receipt cards... [T]herefore, the stamp was no longer valid.
Having regard to the fact that ... the stamp [could not be used to obtain profit unlawfully], the criminal case should be closed.” 13.  In 2001 Mr Matveyev brought proceedings seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of his wrongful conviction. 14.  On 20 December 2001 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk dismissed the claim on the ground that at the time of the conviction there had been no provision in domestic law for claiming such damages. 15.  On 21 January 2002 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 16.  On an unspecified date the applicant applied for the proceedings to be reopened on account of newly discovered evidence. 17.  On 24 December 2002 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk dismissed the application. 18.  On an unspecified date the applicant applied for supervisory review of the judgment of 20 December 2001 and the ruling of 24 December 2002. 19.  On 4 and 17 February 2004 respectively the Arkhangelsk Regional Court dismissed the applications. 20.  Following the delivery of the ruling of 6 October 1999 Mr Matveyev brought proceedings seeking compensation for pecuniary damage sustained as a result of his wrongful conviction within the framework of criminal proceedings. 21.  On 27 September 2000 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk granted the claim and awarded damages in the amount of  531,269.73 Russian roubles (RUB) and costs in the amount of RUB 1,214.98. On an unspecified date the Chairman of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment. 22.  On 7 February 2001 the Presidium of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 27 September 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh examination by a different bench. 23.  On 7 March 2001 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk reclassified the proceedings as civil proceedings. On 13 April 2001 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court quashed the ruling of 7 March 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 24.  On 11 October 2001 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk awarded the applicant damages in the amount of RUB 124,583.57. 25.  On 23 November 2001 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 11 October 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 26.  On 21 January 2002 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk awarded the applicant damages in the amount of RUB 2,225. Damages in the amount of RUB 393,574.87 were awarded on 7 February 2002. Costs in the amount of RUB 1,481.18 were awarded on 28 February 2002. 27.  After the writs of execution were issued, the applicant transmitted them directly to the defendant, namely the Federal Treasury of the Ministry of Finance. 28.  The judgments of 7 and 28 February 2002 were executed on 26 November 2003. The judgment of 21 January 2002 was executed on 31 May 2004.