CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 juillet 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:2pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 74253/11 Konstantin Valeryevich KOLBAS against Russia and 7 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9   July   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 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. 74253/11, the applicant also raised other complaints under Articles 3   and   13 of the Convention. 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 ... any 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) Remaining complaints In application no. 74253/11 the applicant also raised complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about conditions of his pre-trial detention. The Court notes that on 17 March 2020 it adopted a decision in the case of Shmelev and Others v. Russia (applications nos. 41743/17 and 16 others), finding that the new compensatory remedy envisaged by the Russian Compensation Act was an effective remedy, in particular, for all cases of past pre-trial detention and some situations of correctional detention alleged in breach of domestic provisions. The Court therefore rejects the applicant’s complaints in this regard for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. This part of application no. 74253/11 should thus be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 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 30 July 2020.   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)     74253/11 04/11/2011 Konstantin Valeryevich KOLBAS 28/12/1980     15/07/2008 opium   17/07/2008 opium   27/08/2008 opium Anonymous / unverified tip     Anonymous / unverified tip     Anonymous / unverified tip Tomsk Regional Court, 05/12/2011         13542/16 03/03/2016 Eduard Andreyevich KHROMAYEV 25/09/1990 Leonidchenko Valentina Vladimirovna Moscow 25/09/2013 α-Pyrrolidinovalerophenone   03/10/2013 α-Pyrrolidinovalerophenone fellow drug user, anonymous / unverified tip   fellow drug user, anonymous / unverified tip Rostov Regional Court 08/09/2015           37481/16 20/06/2016 Aleksandr Vasilyevich MAKAROV 14/06/1981     27/04/2015 α-Pyrrolidinovalerophenone fellow drug user, anonymous / unverified tip Chelyabinsk Regional Court 23/12/2015     11520/19 30/01/2019 Aleksandr Andreyevich SHMAKOV 12/07/1994     04/03/2017 "Shokolad" (synthetic drug) fellow drug user Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 31/07/2018     21214/19 08/04/2019 Tagy Akif ogly GASANZADE 30/06/1997 Bibik Oleg Ivanovich Ivanovo 02/02/2018 mephedrone   26/02/2018 amphetamine Anonymous / unverified tip     Anonymous / unverified tip Kostroma Regional Court, 05/02/2019           29259/19 17/05/2019 Yana Vyacheslavovna OVCHINNIKOVA 29/06/1989 Spiridonov Aleksey Vyacheslavovich Novocheboksarsk 20/01/2011 hashish fellow drug user Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic, 24/04/2019     29522/19 17/05/2019 Maksim Alekseyevich MIKHAYLOV 08/06/1989 Spiridonov Vyacheslav Leonidovich Novocheboksarsk 20/01/2011 hashish fellow drug user Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic, 24/04/2019     56652/19 29/10/2019 Ivan Narimanovich MAKSIMOV 30/11/1987 Miroshnikov Aleksey Sergeyevich Arkhangelsk 03/02/2019 hashish lack of incriminating information, repeated calls Nenets Autonomous Regional Court, 30/09/2019