CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 mars 2019

.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 Applications nos. 76161/12 and 60080/17 Stanislav Olegovich SOLODUSHCHENKO and Anton Nikolayevich DEMIN against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7   March 2019 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 8 November 2012 and 31 July 2017, respectfully, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, 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”). In application no. 60080/17, the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. 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 (entrapment by State agents) 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 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’ complaints are 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). C.     Remaining complaints In application no. 60080/17, the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of application no. 60080/17 must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 28 March 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   Representative’s name and location Test purchase date Type of drugs Specific grievances Final domestic judgment (appeal court, date)     76161/12 08/11/2012 Stanislav Olegovich Solodushchenko 30/08/1992 Lillepeo Vladimir Gustavovich Ulyanovsk 14/02/2012 Cannabis   lack of incriminating information Ulyanovsk Regional Court 19/09/2012     60080/17 31/07/2017 Anton Nikolayevich Demin 13/01/1986     10/07/2015 Amphetamine   fellow drug user Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 10/02/2017