CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 novembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F88BEDC { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE330DFD7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8B7697D0 { width:20.77pt; display:inline-block } .s4024CB39 { width:139.08pt; display:inline-block } .sF7DC134C { width:39.46pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 73154/14 Denis Vladimirovich YEVDOKIMOV against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26   November 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 November 2014, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Denis Vladimirovich Yevdokimov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and is detained in Skopin. He was represented before the Court by Ms Y.V. Flerova, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. From January 2010 to March 2013 the applicant worked as a senior official at the transport prosecutor’s office in the Moscow region. In that role he oversaw the compliance of various transport companies with federal transport and customs regulations. He associated with Mr O., who was his acquaintance and a friend of his family. In February 2013 the applicant provided Mr O. with contact information of a certain Mr K. Mr K. was a representative of two transport companies which were being audited by the applicant’s agency at that time. Between 27 February and 12 March 2013 Mr O. and Mr K. spoke over the telephone and had several meetings in person. On 12 March 2013 Mr O. received 5 000 000 roubles (RUB, about 70 000 euros (EUR)) from Mr K. in exchange for termination of the audit by the applicant’s agency of the companies that Mr K. represented. On 13 March 2013 the applicant was arrested on charges of bribe-taking, immediately after having received RUB 4 250 000 (about EUR 60 0000) from Mr O. On 13 December 2013 the Meschnanskiy District Court of Moscow convicted the applicant of accepting a bribe in significant amounts in exchange for carrying out a favourable official act. On 15 May 2014 the Moscow City Court confirmed the judgment of the trial court. According to the applicant, the domestic court did not examine the record of the first telephone conversation between Mr. O. and Mr. K., which would allegedly have proven that it actually had been Mr K. who offered to pay the bribe to the applicant and thereby incited him to accept it. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been convicted of accepting a bribe which he had done only because he had been incited to do so by an agent provocateur . He further complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) that the records of the first conversation between his acquaintance Mr O. and Mr K., had not been made available for examination in court and under Article 8 about the recordings made in the course of the undercover operation. THE LAW Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court notes that there is no indication that the first conversation was ever recorded and finds that the applicant’s complaints are inadmissible and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 19 December 2019.   Stephen Phillips   Alena Poláčková   Registrar   President