CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 26 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s17007D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:1pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s684237A1 { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sC3C29E73 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s50B7D056 { width:182.94pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s50040358 { width:255.75pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .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 } .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   CASE OF BOKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 7779/17 and 5 others - see appended list )           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 26 March 2020           This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Bokov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 5 March 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained that they had been unfairly convicted of drug offences following entrapment by State agents. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained that they had been unfairly convicted of drug offences which they had been incited by State agents to commit and that their plea of entrapment had not been properly examined in the domestic proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article   6   §   1 “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” 7.     The Court reiterates that absence in the national legal system of a clear and foreseeable procedure for authorising test purchases of drugs remains a structural problem which exposes applicants to an arbitrary action by the State agents and prevents the domestic courts from conducting an effective judicial review of their entrapment pleas (see   Veselov and   Others v.   Russia , nos.   23200/10 and   2   others, §   126, 2   October 2012). 8.     The Court has consistently found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the deficient existing procedure for authorisation and administration of test purchases of drugs in the respondent State, an issue similar to that in the present case (see   Veselov and   Others , cited above, §§   126 ‑ 28; Lagutin and   Others v.   Russia , nos.   6228/09 and   4   others, §§   124 ‑ 25, 24   April 2014; Lebedev and   Others v.   Russia , nos.   2500/07 and   4   others, §§   12 ‑ 16, 30   April 2015; and Yeremtsov and   Others v.   Russia , nos.   20696/06 and   4   others, §§   17 ‑ 21, 27   November 2014). 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the criminal proceedings against the applicants were incompatible with a notion of a fair trial. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.     Article   41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 12.     The Court reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite an infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be a retrial or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV). Given the Court’s findings in Kumitskiy and Others v. Russia (nos.   66215/12 and 4   others, § 28, 10 July 2018), the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in the present cases (see also Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, §§   80-81, 12 December 2017). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning entrapment by State agents; Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 March 2020, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar   President       APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (entrapment by State agents) 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)     7779/17 15/03/2017 Sergey Valeryevich BOKOV 14/12/1975     04/03/2016 ephedrine       01/04/2016 ephedrine repeated calls, the applicant was not known to the police as a drug dealer before the information given by the drug user, who then acted as a buyer, lack of incriminating information, no evidence that the applicant profited in any respect from the drug sale   repeated calls, the same drug user who had asked the applicant to provide drugs on the earlier occasion Kostroma Regional Court, 11/10/2016         21544/17 10/03/2017 Vladislav Alekseyevich MAKAROV 17/04/1995 Lavrova Yelena Viktorovna Obninsk 05/08/2015 spice repeated calls, fellow drug user, although anonymised after the events, lack of incriminating information Kaluga Regional Court, 12/09/2016     21558/17 07/03/2017 Ilya Vladimirovich NEKRASOV 31/07/1985 Bondarchuk Vladimir Yuryevich Moscow 23/03/2016 heroin fellow drug user, one episode, repeated calls Moscow City Court, 07/11/2016     66866/17 31/08/2017 Vitaliy Viktorovich KRAVCHENKO 25/09/1974 Khlebnikov Aleksandr Leonidovich Levokumskoye 03/10/2013 cannabis lack of incriminating information, undercover policeman, the applicant is mentally challenged Stavropol Regional Court, 21/06/2018     7577/18 29/01/2018 Artem Andreyevich VLASOV 11/08/1986 Averin Aleksandr Valentinovich Vladimir 03/02/2015 heroin lack of incriminating information, repeated calls, fellow drug user Vladimir Regional Court, 03/08/2017     37691/18 17/07/2018 Anna Mikhaylovna MARYASOVA 16/05/1982 Mukhin Dmitriy Gennadyevich Krasnoyarsk 09/08/2016 PVP (synthetic drug of metilefedron) lack of incriminating information, pressure to sell, anonymous/unverified tip, repeated calls, fellow drug user Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 18/01/2018