6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Moscow. 7.  By a judgment of 12 October 1998 the Shymkent Town Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan convicted the applicant of storing and transporting drugs and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The applicant started serving his sentence in Kazakhstan. 8.  On 24 January 2000 the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation granted the applicant’s request to be transferred to Russia, his country of citizenship and his mother’s place of residence, to serve the rest of his sentence. 9.  On 3 February 2000 the applicant’s request to be transferred to Russia was granted by the Kazakhstan Prosecutor General’s Office. 10.  On 29 February 2000, following an agreement between the Russian and Kazakh authorities, the applicant was transferred to Russia. 11.  Following the applicant’s request for supervisory review of his case, the Presidium of the Yuzhno‑Kazakhstanskiy Regional Court, in its decision of 16 March 2000, varied the judgment of 12 October 1998 by reclassifying the offence and reducing the sentence. In the same decision the court applied the 1999 Amnesty Act, discharged the applicant from serving the remainder of his sentence and ordered as follows:
“The convicted prisoner Lobanov is to be released from custody forthwith.” 12.  Next day the Regional Court sent a copy of its decision to the Yuzhno‑Kazakhstanskiy regional prosecutor’s office, which received it on the same day and, since no information about the place where the applicant was serving his sentence had yet been received from the Russian authorities, launched an inquiry about his location. 13.  On 29 March 2000 the applicant arrived at correctional facility no. 8 (penitentiary establishment YaK‑7/8) in Penza. 14.  According to the applicant, on 18 April 2000, immediately after he had learned of the court decision of 16 March 2000, he notified it to the administration of his correctional facility and requested them to expedite his release. 15.  On 10 May 2000, after having established the applicant’s location, the Yuzhno‑Kazakhstanskiy regional prosecutor’s office sent a copy of the Yuzhno‑Kazakhstanskiy Regional Court’s decision of 16 March 2000 to Russia. According to the Government, the decision was sent to the Information Centre of the Penza Regional Police Department. According to the applicant, it was sent to Penza correctional facility no. 8. 16.  According to the Government, a copy of the Yuzhno‑Kazakhstanskiy Regional Court’s decision of 16 March 2000 was received by the Information Centre of the Penza Regional Police Department on 18 May 2000. 17.  On 23 May 2000 the Information Centre, which was located in Penza, after having established the applicant’s location, forwarded the decision to Penza correctional facility no. 8, which received it on 26 May 2000 and forwarded it on the same day to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation. 18.  The Prosecutor General’s Office received the decision on 7 June 2000. On 13 June 2000 a deputy Prosecutor General ordered that the applicant be discharged from serving the remainder of his sentence. The next day, the prosecutor’s decision was sent to the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for execution. On 6 July 2000 it was received by the Ministry of Justice’s Penza Region Department for Execution of Sentences. 19.  On 10 July 2000 the prosecutor’s decision reached correctional facility no. 8 and the applicant was released on the same day. 20.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against the Ministry of Justice of Russia and the Ministry of Finance of Russia seeking compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of his allegedly unlawful and unfounded detention for three months and ten days after the decision of the Yuzhno‑Kazakhstanskiy Regional Court. By a judgment of the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow of 9 October 2001 the applicant’s action was dismissed. On 30 November 2001 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh examination. 21.  On 15 August 2002 the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow examined the case anew. It established what the Russian authorities had done in respect of the Yuzhno‑Kazakhstanskiy Regional Court’s decision. In particular, it noted that the decision had been received by correctional facility no. 8 from the Penza Regional Police Department on 26 May 2000. It found that the Convention of the Commonwealth of Independent States of 6 March 1998 on the Transfer of Convicted Persons for Further Serving of their Sentences was not applicable to the applicant’s case as it had not come into force in respect of Russia at the relevant time. It held that the Prosecutor General’s Office had issued the order for the applicant’s release on 13 June 2000 by virtue of its competence and relevant regulations, notably the decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the USSR of 10 August 1979 on the Procedure for Execution of Obligations arising for the USSR from the Convention on the Transfer of Convicted Persons to Serve their Sentences in a State of their Citizenship, signed in Berlin on 19 May 1978, and instructions of 25 October 1979 on enforcement of that decree. The court stated that the decision of the Prosecutor General’s Office discharging the applicant from serving the remainder of his sentence had been lawful. It held that there had been no fault on the part of the defendant authorities and that therefore there was no basis to grant the applicant’s claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Nor did it find grounds for granting the applicant’s claim for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage based on the loss of employment income. It noted that the applicant, who had been employed six months after his release, had failed to prove that he had been unable to find employment earlier through the fault of the defendant authorities. In rejecting the applicant’s claims the court relied on Articles 151, 1069-1071 and 1099 of the Civil Code. 22.  The applicant appealed. On 26 December 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment. It noted, in particular, that the District Court had established no unjustified delay on the part of the defendant authorities in executing the Kazakh court decision. There had thus been no fault on the part of the authorities, and the applicant’s claims had been rightly dismissed. 23.  On 10 April 2003 the applicant lodged an application for supervisory review of the case. On 13 May 2003 the Moscow City Court rejected his application.