6.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Moscow. 7.  The applicant was a party to a civil dispute with her former husband over a flat which they occupied under a tenancy agreement. The Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow twice rendered judgments unfavourable to the applicant but the Moscow City Court quashed them on appeals and remitted the case for fresh examinations. 8.  The new hearing of the case was set for 14 May 2002. The Nagatinskiy District Court was composed of Ms F. (presiding judge), Ms B. and Mr S. (lay assessors). Prior to that, on 6 March 2001 in accordance with Section 5 of the Lay Assessors Act the acting President of the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow assigned the above two lay assessors to sit with judge F. 9.  Before the court started to examine the claims, the applicant challenged the composition of the bench. She alleged a breach of rules on the appointment of lay assessors in that the lay assessors Ms B. and Mr S. had not been drawn by lot contrary to the requirements of the Federal Law on the Lay Assessors of the Federal Courts of General Jurisdiction (Федеральный Закон «О народных заседателях федеральных судов общей юрисдикции в Российской Федерации»). However, the applicant’s motion of challenge was rejected. No breach of the rules governing the calling of lay assessors was established. 10.  At the next hearing of the case on 18 June 2002 the lay assessors Ms B. and Mr S. were absent. 11.  On 1 July 2002 the presiding judge F. in accordance with Section 9 of the Lay Assessors Act “drew lots” among the lay assessors Ms B. and Mr S. assigned to her on 6 March 2001 by the acting President of the Nagatinskiy District Court, and chose both of them for sitting at the hearing of the applicant’s case. 12.  On 1 July 2002 the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow composed of Ms F. (presiding judge), Ms B. and Mr S. (lay assessors), dismissed the applicant’s action. 13.  The applicant appealed against the judgment. In her grounds for appeal the applicant again raised the issue of the lay assessors being appointed in breach of rules set forth in the Lay Assessors Act. In particular, she submitted that the case file did not contain the record of selection of the lay assessors Mr S. and Ms B. 14.  On 30 January 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The applicant’s argument about the lack of record of the selection of lay assessors in the case file was found in itself insufficient for quashing of the judgment on appeal. The court did not go into further examination of the applicant’s allegation. 15.  The applicant subsequently produced documentary evidence showing that in the course of 2002 the lay assessor Mr S. sat in court in unrelated civil cases with the judge F. on 5 and 30 April, 14, 23 and 24 May, 5, 19 and 27 June, 1 July, 1, 11 and 12 November, 19 and 30 December. The applicant also produced documentary evidence showing that in the course of 2002 the lay assessor Ms B. sat on the bench with the judge F. in unrelated cases on 4 March, 14 May, 5 and 27 June, 1 July, 4 and 17 October.