CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 mai 2020

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9E6BC58A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s94C6321B { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s12CB6876 { margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s6E03D265 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD7AA71C8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s868B1AA5 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75B8D6BE { width:182.33pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB62BA9AD { width:168.28pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 43753/13 Sergey Yuryevich SAPRYKIN against Russia and 12 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14   May   2020 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, 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 and documents 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”). THE LAW 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. 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; Trifontsov v. Russia (dec.), no. 12025/02, 9 October 2012; and Koromchakova v. Russia (dec.), no.   19185/05, 13 December 2016), 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). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. 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)     43753/13 05/06/2013 Sergey Yuryevich SAPRYKIN 09/07/1983     13/11/2012 amphetamine undercover agent Moscow City Court 15/07/2013     46079/13 09/07/2013 Nikolay Alekseyevich VESELOV 05/07/1986 Apacheva Anna Aleksandrovna Gelendzhik 25/05/2012 3-butanoil-1-metilindzol undercover agent Krasnodar Regional Court 20/02/2013     9445/14 21/01/2014 Yuliya Nikolayevna TRATSEVSKAYA 16/02/1981 Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan 10/11/2012 amphetamine undercover agent Moscow City Court 02/09/2013     10221/14 28/01/2014 Mikhail Yevgenyevich GONCHAROV 17/06/1974     10/12/2012 cannabis undercover agent Volgograd Regional Court 02/08/2013     33622/14 17/03/2014 Aleksandr Borisovich BULATSEV 30/12/1970 Belousov Yevgeniy Eduardovich Vladivostok 29/11/2006 cannabis undercover agent Primorye Regional Court 21/01/2014     54345/14 20/07/2014 Valeriy Vitalyevich TATAROV 22/03/1988     24/05/2013 cannabis undercover agent Bryansk Regional Court 24/01/2014     59098/14 12/08/2014 Yevgeniy Valeryevich KAZNIN 05/02/1993 Knyazkin Sergey Aleksandrovich Moscow 05/03/2013 amphetamine undercover agent St Petersburg City Court 13/02/2014     68503/14 15/10/2014 Daniil Olegovich SHITOV 15/04/1993 Meleshko Aleksandr Valeryevich St Petersburg 29/04/2013 amphetamine lack of incriminating information St Petersburg City Court 02/06/2014     34960/18 10/07/2018 Gennadiy Mikhaylovich DANILOV 26/06/1996 Yeliseyev Konstantin Ivanovich Velikiy Novgorod 20/03/2015 metamphetamin   03/04/2015 metamphetamin fellow drug user, lack of incriminating information   Novgorod Regional Court 10/01/2018       48392/18 29/09/2018 Roman Aleksandrovich KAMNEV 12/03/1976     09/01/2015 heroin   13/02/2015 heroin fellow drug user     fellow drug user Irkutsk Regional Court 30/03/2018       55008/18 12/11/2018 Georgiy Ilyich SHAPIRO 18/07/1995 Fomin Mikhail Anatolyevich Moscow 11/05/2016 amphetamine fellow drug user Moscow City Court 30/05/2018   55889/18 14/11/2018 Artem Aleksandrovich SERGEYEV 06/02/1989     12/04/2017 cannabis fellow drug user Moscow City Court 27/06/2018   25228/19 29/04/2019 Dorzhi Batorovich SAMBUYEV 30/04/1988 Voronin Konstantin Vasilyevich St Petersburg 17/02/2017 cocaine fellow drug user St Petersburg City Court 31/01/2019