6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Moscow. 7.  Between July and September 2000 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow (“the Nikulinskiy District Court”), composed of one professional judge, Mr Bobkov, and two lay judges, Ms Matuzova and Mr Rubtsov, examined the charges brought against the applicant in connection with a drug-related offence. 8.  On 4 September 2000 the Nikulinskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of illegal acquisition and storage of narcotics on a particularly large scale for the purpose of sale and of illegal sale of drugs and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. 9.  The applicant and his counsel appealed against the judgment of 4 September 2000 to the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”). They complained, in particular, that lay judge Rubtsov had not been appointed in accordance with the law and had not been independent because he worked as a clerk (секретарь суда) at the Nikulinskiy District Court. 10.  On 5 October 2000 the City Court returned the case to the first-instance court and ordered it to look into the applicant’s complaints about the competency of lay judge Rubtsov. 11.  The results of the inquiry carried out by the Supreme Court Justice Department in respect of the competency of lay judge Rubtsov to sit in the case were summarised in a report of 17 January 2001, which stated as follows:
“...The inquiry established that the Nikulinskiy District Court had at its disposal a copy of the decision of 24 October 1991 of the Gagarinskiy District Council of People’s Deputies of Moscow confirming the results of the additional selection of lay judges of the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow as well as a copy of the list of lay judges elected by the staff of the Gagarinskiy District Court, which comprised two persons (Mrs Asharova and Mr Rubtsov) and which had not been properly certified.
According to information obtained from the Administration of Moscow and from the Moscow Archives, the originals of the documents on the election of lay judges of the Gagarinskiy District Court had not been kept.
Nevertheless, lay judge Rubtsov had been in possession of the card [identifying him as a] lay judge of the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow, which had been valid until May 1995.
The presidential decrees of 22.03.95 No. 299 and 23.01.97 No. 41, 12.12.98 No. 64, 02.01.00 No.37, and 25.01.00 No.103 extended the terms of office of previously selected lay judges until the adoption of the Federal Law on the selection of lay judges and the compilation of general lists of lay judges.” 12.  On 3 April 2001 the City Court examined the case on appeal. It held that the applicant’s guilt of acquisition of drugs for the purpose of sale and the sale of drugs had been proved by the evidence examined during the trial. Regarding the allegedly unlawful composition of the trial court, the appeal court held that the term of office of lay judge Rubtsov had been extended in accordance with the Presidential decrees. The court also noted that the fact that lay judge Rubtsov worked for the court as a clerk did not preclude him from being elected as a lay judge. The City Court reduced the applicant’s sentence to five years’ imprisonment and upheld the remainder of the judgment. 13.  On 13 February 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (“the Supreme Court”) reviewed the case under the supervisory review procedure. The Supreme Court held that the applicant’s guilt of acquisition and storage of drugs on a large scale had been established. However, the materials of the criminal case file had not contained any evidence which would allow it to establish with sufficient credibility that the applicant had acquired the drugs for the purpose of sale and that he had sold them. In those circumstances, the applicant’s actions should have been classified as illicit procurement and storage of drugs without intent to sell. 14.  The Supreme Court amended the judgment of 4 September 2000 and the decision of 3 April 2001, convicted the applicant of illicit procurement and storage of drugs without intent to sell and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. With reference to the Amnesty Act of 26 May 2000, the court ordered that the applicant be released from serving his sentence and, consequently, from custody.