DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE DEDOV

I regret that I cannot agree with my dear colleagues that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The majority ’ s two arguments are presented in paragraph 66 of the judgment. The first argument is that a rule of domestic law was breached as lay judges had been called for service more than once in the same year, 2004. However, the facts of the case show that they were involved in the present case before another case. The position of the Russian Supreme Court presented by the Government and available in the case file supports that view (see paragraph 61). Unfortunately, according to the documents provided by the parties, neither the Moscow City Court nor the Supreme Court explained their position as to why the composition of the court would not always be unlawful in a such situation.

I refer to the cases of Posokhov v. Russia and Shabanov and Tren v. Russia (both cited in the judgment, and where the Court also found a violation of Article 6), which indirectly provide some support for my position: in their statement of appeal the applicants had submitted that lay judges had previously participated in the hearing of other cases in the same year. Therefore, the logic is that if the lay judges are involved in two cases at the same time, it does not mean that the composition of the court is unlawful in both cases, rather it is unlawful in the subsequent case. I should further note that the quality of the legislation, namely the Lay Judges Act, could be better.

As regards the second argument, that no evidence had been produced by the Government as to the legal grounds for the participation of lay judges, the applicant had never raised that argument before the national authorities (see paragraph 20) or before the Court (see paragraph 62). The Court does not usually overstep its competence. Moreover, respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not so require in the circumstances of the present case.