8.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Riga. 9.  In 1997 he decided to move from Latvia to Russia. He negotiated a real estate deal with a Moscow-based agent. 10.  On 20 March 1997 the applicant withdrew from his bank accounts 250,000 US dollars (“USD”) in cash and asked his acquaintance, B., to deliver the money to Moscow. 11.  B. arrived in the Sheremetyevo-1 airport later the same day. He failed to declare the money at the customs checkpoint and was charged with smuggling. 12.  On 13 September 2000, the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow found B. guilty of smuggling under Article 188-1 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to two years' suspended imprisonment. With regard to the money, the court said in the operative part of the judgment:
“USD 250,000, deposited with the Sheremetyevo Customs Board, are to be forfeited to the Treasury as an object of smuggling.” 13.  In his appeal against the judgment, B.'s lawyer submitted that the Golovinskiy District Court had failed to indicate any legal ground for the conﬁscation order. He argued that the money had been included in the case-ﬁle as evidence and that no relevant law provided for its conﬁscation. Moreover, lawfully obtained assets were to be returned to their owners. B.'s lawyer also claimed that Article 188-1 of the Criminal Code did not provide for such a sanction as conﬁscation. 14.  On 25 October 2000, the Moscow City Court refused the appeal. With regard to the money, the court said:
“USD 250,000, which was the object of the smuggling, was rightfully forfeited to the Treasury.” 15.  On 1 July 2002 a Deputy President of the Supreme Court lodged an application for supervisory review against the judgments. He claimed that the smuggled money could only be conﬁscated if proven to have been acquired criminally. 16.  On 18 July 2002 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court refused the application on the ground that a Ruling of the Plenary Supreme Court of the USSR issued in 1978 permitted the conﬁscation of smuggled goods which had been attached to case-ﬁles as exhibits. 17.  On 15 August 2002 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court lodged another application for supervisory review claiming, among other things, that the Ruling of 1978 was inconsistent with later superseding legislation. However, on an unspeciﬁed date the Deputy President of the Supreme Court withdrew his application.