CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 février 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s80E2F039 { width:6.54pt; display:inline-block } .s59B01AF0 { width:192.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 7591/12 Yaroslav Nikolayevich SKRIPNIKOV against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15   February 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 January 2012, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Yaroslav Nikolayevich Skripnikov, was born in the town of Brovary. The applicant’s complaint under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the entrapment by State agents was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Complaint under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention The applicant complained that he had been unfairly convicted of drug-related criminal offences incited by the police. This complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “In the determination of ... criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” The Court has emphasised, in a number of cases, the role of domestic courts in dealing with criminal cases where the accused alleges that he was incited to commit an offence. Any arguable plea of incitement places the courts under an obligation to examine it and make conclusive findings on the issue of entrapment, with the burden of proof on the prosecution to demonstrate that there was no incitement (see Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, §§ 70-71, ECHR 2008, and Khudobin v. Russia , no.   59696/00, §§ 133-135, ECHR 2006‑XII (extracts)). The Court observes that during the criminal proceedings before the Russian courts the applicant denied the facts imputed to him, including having entirely contested his having had any part in the crime. He further did not raise the incitement claim on appeal properly, having insisted that he had only wanted to assist his friend, that he had had no knowledge of any drug deeds going on and that he had had no intention to sell drugs. It follows that the incitement defence was not formulated clearly and in good time by the applicant in the domestic proceedings (see Lelyukin v.   Russia (dec.), no. 70841/10, 25   August 2015; Bagaryan and Others v.   Russia (dec.), nos. 3346/06 and 4   others, 12 November 2013; and Trifontsov v. Russia (dec.), no. 12025/02, 9   October 2012). Accordingly, this application brought before the Court must be rejected under Article 35 §§   1   and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 8 March 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Luis López Guerra Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Test purchase date Type of drugs Final domestic judgment (appeal court, date)     7591/12 30/01/2012 Yaroslav Nikolayevich Skripnikov 10/07/1982 Rybanova Galina Konstantinovna Obninsk 14/08/2010 mephedrone   15/08/2010 mephedrone Kaluga Regional Court 26/08/2011