CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 septembre 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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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. 43709/12 Anton Vladimirovich PROSTOTIN against Russia and 8 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13   September   2018 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants in applications nos. 43709/12, 53781/17 and 56098/17, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the entrapment by State agents were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. B.     Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention The applicants complained that they had been unfairly convicted of drug ‑ related criminal offences incited by the police. These complaints fall 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 further finds it factually inconsistent for the applicants to deny that they committed a crime or that they merely assisted someone with a purchase and to simultaneously complain that she had been entrapped into so doing. In the Court’s view, the defense of entrapment necessarily presupposes that the accused admits that the act charged was committed but claims that it happened due to unlawful inducement by the police (see Koromchakova v. Russia (dec.), no. 19185/05, 13 December 2016). Tuning to the cases listed in the appended table, the Court notes that the applicants’ plea of incitement was adequately addressed by the Russian courts, which took the necessary steps to uncover the truth and to eradicate the doubts as to whether the applicants had committed the offence as a result of incitement by an agent provocateur. Their conclusion that there had been no entrapment was based on a reasonable assessment of evidence that was relevant and sufficient. The Court also does not lose sight of the fact that during the criminal proceedings before the Russian courts the applicants either denied the facts imputed to them and/or contested the legal classification of their acts or directly confirmed their involvement in the drug sale, having changed their versions of events. Nevertheless, despite the unclearly formulated incitement defence of the applicants 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), the Russian courts took all possible steps to verify each version to be certain that the acts imputed to the applicants did not result from unlawful actions on the part of investigative authorities. Having regard to the scope of the judicial review of the applicants’ plea of incitement, the Court finds that the applicants’ complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 (see, for similar reasoning, Bannikova v. Russia , no. 18757/06, §§ 74-79, 4 November 2010). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 4 October 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth Representative name and location Test purchase date Type of drugs Specific grievances Final domestic judgment (appeal court, date)     43709/12 06/06/2012 Anton Vladimirovich Prostotin 01/01/1991 Ovchinnikova Larisa Mikhaylovna Vladivostok 25/09/2009 heroine lack of incriminating information Primorye Regional Court, 21/02/2012     31610/13 15/03/2013 Yevgeniy Nikolayevich Kichigin 18/01/1989     14/02/2012 hashish anonymous/unverified tip, undercover policeman Ulyanovsk Regional Court, 19/09/2012     41161/13 17/05/2013 Igor Petrovich Negodyayev 13/10/1980 Mikhaylina Nadezhda Mikhaylovna Bor 21/01/2011 heroin anonymous/unverified tip, undercover policeman Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 19/08/2013     20200/14 27/02/2014 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Drobyshev 15/05/1992 Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan 09/07/2011 hashish anonymous/unverified tip, undercover policeman Astrakhan Regional Court, 29/08/2013     63788/16 17/10/2016 Fedor Alekseyevich Kuntsov 04/06/1993     23/07/2015 spice type (synthetic marijuana type) second test purchase Kirov Regional Court, 19/04/2016     43241/17 01/06/2017 Aleksandr Ivanovich Mazura 06/07/1992 Merkulov Aleksey Valeryevich Orel 10/02/2016 marijuana fellow drug user Moscow Regional Court, 16/02/2017     53781/17 18/07/2017 Sergey Aleksandrovich Antonov 09/12/1985 Sivchenko Vadim Tikhonovich Korolev 13/05/2016 amphetamine fellow drug user Moscow Regional Court, 26/01/2017     56098/17 26/07/2017 Galina Pavlovna Kazankova 12/12/1966 Tsvingli Vladimir Igorevich Moskou 04/04/2014 Heroin fellow drug user, anonymous/unverified tip the Moscow City Court, 29/03/2017     78245/17 02/11/2017 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Koshelev 18/01/1972 Balakir Yelena Aleksandrovna Volgograd 28/11/2015 marijuana lack of incriminating information Volgograd Regional Court, 02/05/2017