CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 20 avril 2021

.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 } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; 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 } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; 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 } .s4E036C5F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s29A5A94F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:20.17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:5.33pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sF5DC77FC { margin-left:2.81pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s16DC539 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic } .s14AC500A { width:3.73pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sECB6A556 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8A9EE819 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE9021CBE { width:184.28pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .sEB3964EC { height:76.1pt } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s3A31037B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; font-size:9pt } .s815796A7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sFA45025D { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#212121 } .s98992F47 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; color:#212121 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF KUZMINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 66152/14 and 8 others – see appended list)     JUDGMENT   Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Fair hearing • Police entrapment through drug test purchases, resulting from structural problems in domestic regulatory framework • Insufficient safeguards against abuse • Failure of domestic courts to fully assess applicant’s entrapment pleas Art 46 • General measures • Further reform of regulatory framework for operational-search activities required • Need for clear and foreseeable procedure for authorising undercover operations, by a judicial body with effective safeguards   STRASBOURG 20 April 2021   FINAL   20/07/2021   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kuzmina and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Dmitry Dedov,   Georges Ravarani,   Darian Pavli,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to: the applications (see the appendix below) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by nine Russian nationals (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appendix; the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 23 March 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     This case concerns a recurring problem of police entrapment in the conduct of undercover operations. It addresses the question whether the structural problem identified in Veselov and Others v. Russia (nos.   23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, §§   88 ‑ 94 and 126-27, 2   October 2012) and reiterated in Lagutin and Others v. Russia (nos.   6228/09, 19123/09, 19678/07, 52340/08 and 7451/09, §   134, 24 April 2014) persists. The judgment contains an indication under Article 46 of the general measures required to overcome the structural problem, notably to introduce a clear and foreseeable procedure for authorisation of operational-search activities, such as test purchases and operational experiments, by a judicial body. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants’ details are set out in the appendix. 3.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr   M. Galperin. 4.     The facts relating to each individual applicant, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The undercover operations and the ensuing criminal convictions of the applicants Ms Kuzmina (application no. 66152/14) 5.     On 8 February 2013 the Federal Drug Control Service (ФСКН – hereinafter “the FSKN”) ordered a test purchase to take place between 8   February and 8 March 2013. The order referred to the existence of information from undisclosed sources about an unidentified person selling amphetamine in nightclubs in Moscow at the price of 1,200   roubles (RUB) per packet containing 0.3-1.0 g of substance. 6.     On 9 February 2013 the FSKN received a statement from the applicant’s acquaintance Ms K. that the applicant had been selling psychotropic substances in nightclubs in Moscow and that at the time she had agreed with her to purchase 2 g of amphetamine for RUB   2,000. Ms   K. agreed to act as a buyer in the test purchase. In the early hours of the following morning, at 3.45 a.m., Ms K. met the applicant and her friend in a nightclub and purchased 0.64 g of amphetamine from them. 7.     At trial Ms K. testified that she had never purchased drugs from the applicant before the test purchase, but that they had previously taken drugs together. The police officer who had ordered the test purchase testified that immediately prior to the test purchase Ms K. had been arrested by the FSKN for selling psychotropic substances. Another witness, Ms   Z., who had been arrested with Ms K., testified to the same effect. The applicant made a plea of entrapment, but it was rejected on the grounds that she had readily agreed to sell drugs to Ms K. and had been in possession of a larger amount of drugs than she had agreed to sell Ms K. It also stated that Ms   K. had been acting on her own initiative and not as a police informant or agent. 8.     On 21 October 2013 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of attempting to illegally sell drugs during the test purchase and sentenced her to ten years’ imprisonment. This judgment was upheld by the Moscow City Court on 28 April 2014. Mr Khakhubiya (application no. 76054/14) 9.     On 14 December 2012 the FSKN allegedly received information from undisclosed sources about the applicant’s involvement in dealing psychotropic substances. On 18 December 2012 they ordered a test purchase with the applicant’s acquaintance “Luchko”, whose identity remained concealed, acting as a buyer. According to the applicant, “Luchko” had just been arrested on suspicion of drug dealing and had called him numerous times to get him to sell, complaining of withdrawal symptoms and appealing to his compassion. On the same day she purchased 0.18   g of amphetamine from the applicant. 10.     On 20 December 2012 the FSKN ordered that the applicant’s telephone be tapped, and subsequently carried out two more test purchases of amphetamine: 0.14 g from the applicant on 18 January 2013, and 1.01   g from another person on 7 February 2013. They also conducted secret surveillance of the applicant on 23 December 2012 and 30 January 2013. 11.     On 25 April 2013 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing on the basis of the results of the three test purchases. 12.     At trial “Luchko” testified that she had previously taken drugs with the applicant and had purchased drugs from him before the test purchase, although on some occasions he had refused to sell to her. She refused to testify in relation to her alleged arrest on suspicion of drug dealing immediately before the test purchase, relying on the privilege against self ‑ incrimination. In particular, she did not answer the questions about her relation with the applicant and with thee police officer in charge of the test purchase. The latter officer testified that prior to receiving information about the applicant’s involvement in dealing amphetamine there had been information of him dealing cannabis. Witness K. testified that he had been arrested on 3 October 2013 in possession of drugs and that on that day he had made a statement saying that he had purchased drugs from the applicant in February of that year. Witness V. testified that on 29 November 2013 after his arrest he had confessed to having bought drugs from the applicant in December 2012 and January 2013. 13.     On 1 July 2014 the Pravoberezhnyy District Court of Lipetsk found the applicant guilty of attempting to illegally sell drugs during the test purchases and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. This judgment was upheld by the Lipetsk Regional Court on 16 September 2014. Mr Kotsuba (application no. 77426/14) 14.     On 1 December 2012 the applicant was released from prison after serving a sentence for embezzlement. 15.     On a date which remained secret the police allegedly received information from an undisclosed source that the applicant was selling desomorphine. On 21   February 2013 they ordered a test purchase in respect of the applicant with “Vlad”, who, according to the applicant, had a close relationship with him, but whose identity remained concealed, acting as a buyer. On the same day “Vlad” purchased a syringe containing 0.08 g of desomorphine from the applicant. On the same day criminal proceedings were opened against the “unidentified perpetrator” who had sold the drug during the test purchase. 16.     On 24 February 2013 “Vlad” gave his written consent to act in the above-mentioned test purchase. 17.     On 26 March 2013 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing on the basis of the test purchase results. 18.     At trial “Vlad” testified that he had known the applicant for two months, that he was a drug user and that on two occasions in February 2013 he had purchased desomorphine from the applicant which had been prepared by F. The applicant and F. testified that it had been “Vlad” who had introduced the applicant to F. and that they had been taking drugs together, but only F. had known how to prepare them. The police officer in charge of the test purchase testified that the date on which he had received the information in respect of the applicant and the reasons “Vlad” had agreed to act as a buyer constituted classified information and thus declined to answer the questions concerning these points. 19.     On 3 March 2014 the Zelenogradskiy Town Court of Krasnoyarsk rejected a plea of entrapment made by the applicant. It found him guilty of attempting to illegally sell drugs during the test purchase and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. This judgment was upheld by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 27   November 2014. Mr Panin (application no. 15189/15) 20.     On 12 November 2013 the applicant’s acquaintance, Mr K., was arrested on suspicion of embezzlement. He told the police that he knew a drug dealer and, following a request from the police, called him to arrange to buy drugs. On the same day the police conducted a test purchase with P. acting as a buyer whereby the applicant sold K. 8 g of hashish. According to the applicant, the buyer had first sold him the drugs but then asked him to sell them back. The applicant was arrested on the spot on suspicion of drug dealing. 21.     At trial K. testified that he had known the applicant but had not purchased drugs from him before the test purchase. The applicant made a plea of entrapment, but it was rejected on the grounds that he had readily agreed to sell drugs to P., who had been acting on his own initiative as an independent private individual and not as a police informer or agent. 22.     On 7 May 2014 the Perovskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of attempting to illegally sell drugs during the test purchase and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. This judgment was upheld by the Moscow City Court on 16   October 2014. Mr Karlash (application no. 23497/15) 23.     In 2010 the police obtained a court order permitting them to conduct telephone tapping to verify suspected drug dealing activity. They intercepted telephone calls between the applicant and B., the content of which was not disclosed to the Court. 24.     On unspecified date in 2013 to 2014 the police received information from an undisclosed source that the applicant was selling cannabis. 25.     On 6 January 2014 the police ordered a test purchase of drugs from the applicant, with reference to the information received from an unnamed person who was to act as a buyer in the test purchase. On the same day the police conducted the test purchase with the applicant’s acquaintance “Ivanov”, whose identity remained concealed, acting as a buyer. The applicant, allegedly tricked by “Ivanov”, sold him 25.97 g of cannabis. Later the same day the police searched the applicant’s home, seized 206.69   g of cannabis and arrested him. 26.     At trial “Ivanov” testified that he was a drug addict and had purchased drugs from the applicant, his old acquaintance, before the test purchase. Police officer F., who was in charge of the test purchase, testified that it had been ordered on the basis of information from an undisclosed source received in 2013 to 2014 and that they did not attempt to identify anyone other than “Ivanov” to whom the applicant had previously sold drugs. He was unable to clarify the reason for conducting the test purchase. The trial court noted that telephone tapping had been authorised and carried out in 2010, but did not refer to the content of the intercepted calls. The applicant made a plea of entrapment, but it was dismissed on the grounds that the facts surrounding the drugs sale during the test purchase had been sufficiently established. 27.     On 25 September 2014 the Starominskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region found the applicant guilty of attempting to illegally sell drugs during the test purchase and illegal possession and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. This judgment was upheld by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 5   November 2014. Mr Yemlevskiy (application no. 23896/15) 28.     In November 2013 the FSKN allegedly received information from an undisclosed source that the applicant was involved in drug dealing with a certain H. 29.     On 5 November 2013 the FSKN ordered a test purchase, with police officer R. acting as a buyer. On 6 November 2013 the test purchase was carried out, in which the applicant assisted R. in acquiring 7 g of cannabis from H. On 12 November 2013, during a second test purchase, the applicant assisted R. in acquiring 7.2 g of cannabis from H. The applicant claimed that the buyer had called him numerous times asking him to sell. 30.     At trial R. testified that the test purchase had been ordered immediately after receiving information relating to suspected drug dealing by the applicant and H., and that no other steps had been taken to verify that information. The applicant made a plea of entrapment, but it was rejected on the grounds that he had readily agreed to sell drugs to R. The latter had been an undercover police officer; he had not entrapped the applicant, but had simply “joined the ongoing criminal activity”. The court went on to state that the use of police officers as test buyers was not against the law. 31.     On 11 September 2014 the Kirovskiy District Court of Saratov found the applicant guilty of aiding the acquisition of cannabis on two occasions and unlawful possession of 11.2 g of cannabis. He was sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment. This judgment was upheld by the Saratov Regional Court on 18   November 2014. Mr Yarmukhamedov (application no. 28472/15) 32.     On an unspecified date in July 2014 the police received information from the applicant’s acquaintance “Sergeyev”, whose identity remained concealed, that the applicant was selling cannabis. “Sergeyev” gave his consent to act as a buyer in a test purchase. 33.     On 8 August 2014 the police carried out a test purchase pursuant to an order issued the same day. During the test purchase “Sergeyev” acquired 0.6   g of cannabis from the applicant. The applicant was charged with drug dealing based on the results of the test purchase. 34.     During the investigation “Sergeyev” made a statement that he had taken part in the test purchase because a police officer had asked him to do so. At trial he testified that the applicant had offered to sell him cannabis on multiple occasions in the past, and that after the last occasion he had reported it to the police and given his consent to take part in the test purchase. The applicant made a plea of entrapment. He admitted to having collected wild-growing cannabis for personal consumption; he stated that the buyer, who he had known to have criminal connections, had been pressing him to sell and had made threats; he had ended up giving him some cannabis for free. Police officer Zh. testified that a month before the test purchase he had received information from an unspecified source that the applicant was selling cannabis. Questions about earlier episodes of drug dealing asked during the cross-examination of the police officers were not answered on the grounds of secrecy. The court dismissed the applicant’s allegation of entrapment as unsubstantiated. 35.     On 24 December 2014 the Kalyazinskiy District Court of the Tver Region found the applicant guilty of attempting to illegally sell drugs during the test purchase and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. This judgment was upheld by the Tver Regional Court on 11 March 2015. Mr Voychalis (application no. 29068/15) 36.     In August 2013 the police received information from their regular informant that the applicant was involved in dealing cannabis. Referring to this information, on 17 October 2013 they ordered a test purchase from the applicant with the participation of “Michael”, whose identity remained undisclosed, as a buyer. 37.     On 1 November 2013 “Michael” purchased 30.75 g of cannabis from the applicant, who had purchased it from another person immediately before that. 38.     The applicant was charged with conspiracy to sell drugs on the basis of the test purchase results. 39.     During trial the applicant made a plea of entrapment, claiming that “Michael” had been calling him incessantly, pressing him to sell. “Michael” testified that he had been approached by a police officer, who had asked him to take part in a test purchase from the applicant since he knew him. The police officer in charge of the test purchase testified that it had been ordered because the police had received information concerning the applicant’s suspected drug dealing. The court dismissed the entrapment plea on the basis that the applicant’s pre-existing criminal intent had been demonstrated during the test purchase. Having established that the buyer had indeed called him numerous times, the court did not consider this fact significant. 40.     On 5 December 2014 the Vyselkovskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region found the applicant guilty of attempting to illegally sell drugs during the test purchase with two co-defendants. He was sentenced to eight and a half years’ imprisonment. This judgment was upheld by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 18 February 2015. Mr Kostromin (application no. 30920/15) 41.     On 21 April 2014 the police ordered a test purchase from the applicant on the basis of information from an undisclosed source that the applicant was dealing “smoking mix” (herbal tobacco) containing narcotic substances. The test purchase was carried out the same day with the applicant’s old friend Sh. acting as a buyer. In the course of the test purchase Sh. contacted the applicant and acquired from him 0.98 g of smoking mix containing narcotic substances. 42.     The applicant was charged with drug dealing based on the results of the test purchase. 43.     At trial the applicant alleged that it had not been his intention to sell drugs to Sh., but that he had acquired them at Sh.’s request so that they could take them together. He denied any prior involvement in drug dealing and made a plea of entrapment. The police officer in charge of the test purchase testified that the buyer Sh. had been detained with another person in possession of drugs. He had agreed to participate in a test purchase from someone he had identified as his seller. Sh. testified that he had been arrested by the police in possession of drugs while on parole and had been obliged to participate in the test purchase under threat of the parole being revoked. He had called the applicant and suggested that they meet up and smoke together; he had not handed over the money to him, but had put it on the car seat because “he was not a dealer”; there had been no prior agreement that he would take the drugs away. He contested statements he had made during the investigation that he had voluntarily turned up at the police station to report the applicant’s criminal activity. The court, however, dismissed his testimony and gave weight to the statements made during the investigation. It dismissed the applicant’s plea of entrapment on the grounds that during the test purchase he had readily agreed to Sh.’s request without any pressure, he had demonstrated that he knew the prices of the drug, and there had been more drugs found on him than the amount he had promised Sh. 44.     On 12 November 2014 the Leninskiy District Court of Novosibirsk found the applicant guilty of attempting to illegally sell drugs during the test purchase and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. This judgment was upheld by the Novosibirsk Regional Court on 17 April 2015. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE Relevant provisions on undercover operations 45.     For a summary of the relevant provisions on undercover operations and evidence in criminal proceedings in Russia, see Lagutin and Others v.   Russia , nos.   6228/09 and 4   others, §§   62 ‑ 66, 24 April 2014. 46 .     On 27 September 2013 the Ministry of the Interior and other law ‑ enforcement agencies approved a Joint Instruction on the procedure for presenting the results of operational-search activities to the investigating authorities and the courts. Under the Joint Instruction, if the data collected in the course of operational-search activities contains   information about the commission of a criminal offence, that information, together with all the necessary supporting material, such as photographs and audio or video ‑ recordings, must be sent to the competent investigating authorities or a court. If the information was obtained as a result of operational-search measures involving interference with the right to the privacy of postal, telegraphic and other communications transmitted by means of a telecommunications network or mail services, or with the right to privacy of the home, it must be sent to the investigation or prosecution authorities together with the judicial decision authorising those measures. The information must be transmitted in accordance with the special procedure for handling classified information, unless the State agency performing operational-search activities has decided to declassify it. Russian Supreme Court’s approach to cases concerning police entrapment 47.     On 15 June 2006 the Plenary Supreme Court of the Russian Federation adopted guidelines (Ruling no. 14), amended on 23   December 2010, on criminal case-law involving narcotic drugs or psychotropic, potent or toxic substances. The Plenary ruled, in particular, that charges of attempting to sell should be brought against anyone selling such substances where this was carried out in connection with a test purchase under the Operational-Search Activities Act (Article 30 § 3 in conjunction with Article 228.1 of the Criminal Code). It also sets out the following conditions under which the results of a test purchase may be admitted as evidence in criminal proceedings: (i) they must have been obtained in accordance with the law; (ii) they must demonstrate that the defendant’s intention to engage in dealing illegal substances had developed independently of the undercover agent’s acts; and (iii) they must demonstrate that the defendant had carried out all the preparatory steps necessary for the commission of the offence. 48 .     On 27 June 2012 the Presidium of the Supreme Court issued a Review of judicial practice in criminal cases involving narcotic drugs or psychotropic, potent or toxic substances. It gave instructions to the lower courts, in particular, concerning the examination of pleas of entrapment in accordance with the principles set out in the Court’s judgments in Vanyan v.   Russia (no.   53203/99, 15   December   2005), Khudobin v. Russia (no.   59696/00 , 26 October 2006) and Bannikova v. Russia (no.   18757/06, 4   November 2010) (paragraph 7.2 of the Review) and the exclusion of evidence obtained during a test purchase if the order did not comply with the law and the Joint Instruction (see paragraph 46 above). 49 .     On 15 June 2016 the Plenary Supreme Court adopted Resolution no.   14, containing an extensive report summarising the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights in cases where a violation of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention had been found in view of the applicants’ conviction as a result of police entrapment. It has since issued a number of similar interpretative summaries of the Court’s case-law on this subject. In addition, referring to Article 415 § 5 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, the Presidium of the Supreme Court has regularly authorised the reopening of criminal proceedings in view of the fact that the European Court of Human Rights has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention following the Russian courts’ failure to effectively conduct a review of the defendants’ arguments that the criminal offence had been committed as a result of police entrapment (see, for example, the Presidium’s decision no. 28-P17 issued on 12   April 2017 in response to the Court’s decision in the case of Ulyanov and Others v. Russia   [Committee], nos.   22486/05 and 10 others, 9   February 2016). 50.     Rulings of the Constitutional Court of 29 September 2011 no.   1257 ‑ O-O, 17 November 2011 no.   1586-O-O and 17 July 2012 nos.   1485-O and 1473-O, state that a test purchase may only be carried out after the relevant order has been issued. Relevant international instruments and comparative law 51.     The Council of Europe’s instruments on the use of special investigative techniques are outlined in Ramanauskas v. Lithuania ([GC], no.   74420/01 , §§ 35-37, ECHR 2008). 52.     A comparative analysis of the national systems of authorising undercover operations in the Council of Europe member States is summarised in Veselov and Others v. Russia (nos.   23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, §§ 50-63, 2   October 2012). THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 53.     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 54.     The applicants alleged that they had been convicted of criminal offences which they only had committed because they had been incited to do so by an agent provocateur . They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” Admissibility 55.     The Court notes that the applications are neither manifestly ill ‑ founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible. Merits The parties’ submissions (a)    The applicants (i)       Individual cases 56.     The applicants maintained that they had been unfairly convicted of crimes which the police had incited them to commit. They submitted that prior to the test purchases they had never procured drugs and would not have done so had they not been lured into the transactions by the police and their informants. 57.     The applicants claimed that the police had had no good reason to suspect them of planning to sell drugs. According to them, the police had not demonstrated that they had actually been in possession of information suggesting their involvement in drug dealing or indicating any predisposition to commit drugs offences. Their criminal convictions had been based exclusively on the evidence obtained through the test purchases. The police had not taken any other measures to verify the information about the applicants’ suspected criminal activity. The applicant in case no.   23497/15 contested, in this regard, the Government’s reliance on the results of the telephone tapping, pointing out that the recordings in question had been made four years prior to the test purchase in an unrelated case. 58.     The applicants in all cases alleged that the buyers had not been independent from the police. Several applicants elaborated this complaint as follows. (i)     In case no. 66152/14 the applicant relied on the testimony of the police officer who had ordered the test purchase and stated that Ms K., the buyer, had been arrested in relation to a drug offence shortly before she had agreed to participate in a test purchase against the applicant. According to the applicant, Ms K. had been compelled by the police to participate in the test purchase to avoid criminal prosecution. (ii)     In case no.   76054/14 the applicant also alleged that the buyer, “Luchko”, had been arrested shortly before the test purchase, but at trial the latter had declined to testify on this point, relying on the privilege against self ‑ incrimination. (iii)     In case no.   15189/15 the applicant submitted that the buyer Mr   K. had testified that he had been arrested as a suspect of an unrelated criminal offence and that the police had asked him to call someone who he knew would sell him drugs. Before Mr K. had called the applicant, the police had had no information about him, but they had not taken any steps to verify Mr   K.’s allegation and had proceeded straight to the test purchase. (iv)     In case no.   23096/15 the applicant pointed out that the buyer had been a police officer, while in case no. 29068/15 the order for the test purchase stated that the buyer had been a police informant. The applicant in case no.   23497/15 argued that the concealed identity of the buyer made it impossible to verify whether he or she had been a police informant; accordingly, he or she should be presumed to have been dependent on the police. He submitted that a drug-dependent buyer who enjoyed “secret” status could not operate as an independent source. 59.     The applicants claimed that the investigating authorities had not acted in an essentially passive manner, but had taken the initiative to contact them through their agents and persuade them to find drugs. According to the applicants, they had succumbed to the requests of their acquaintances on the understanding that they would only do it once, as an exception. The applicants’ specific complaints in this respect were as follows. (i)     In case no. 66152/14 Ms K. had tried hard to persuade her to buy the amphetamine for her, which had amounted to incitement. (ii)     In case no. 76054/14, according to the applicant, “Luchko” had called him insistently and complained of withdrawal symptoms, appealing to his compassion to persuade him to obtain drugs for her. (iii)     In case no. 77426/14 the applicant claimed that “Vlad” had been in a close relationship with him. (iv)     In case no. 15198/15 the applicant alleged that the buyer P. had first sold him the drugs but then asked him to sell them back. (v)     In case no. 23497/15 the applicant alleged that he had been tricked by the buyer “Ivanov”. (vi)     In case no. 23896/15 the applicant claimed that the undercover police officer R. who had acted as a buyer had called him numerous times asking him to sell. (vii)     In case no. 28472/15 the applicant alleged that he had sold under pressure and threats from the buyer “Sergeyev”. (viii)     In case no. 29068/15 the applicant claimed that “Michael” had been calling him incessantly to make him sell the drugs. (ix)     In case no.   30920/15 the applicant claimed that he had obtained drugs with the intention of taking them with his old friend Sh. 60.     The applicant in case no. 28472/15 alleged that the order for the test purchase in his case had been issued after the beginning of the undercover operation. According to the applicant in case no. 29068/15, the order for the test purchase in his case had been registered a week before the same document was issued. 61.     The applicants further complained that their entrapment complaints had not been duly examined by the domestic courts. They alleged that during trial certain information had not been disclosed on the basis of confidentiality, such as the identity of the buyers (in cases nos. 76054/14, 77426/14, 23497/15, 28472/15 and 29068/15), or the source of information on the basis of which the police had ordered the test purchase (nos.   66152/14, 76054/14, 77426/14, 23896/15, 23497/15, 29068/15, 30920/15). Moreover, when the police officers and the buyers had been cross-examined, they had declined to answer certain questions, relying on confidentiality. They had refused, in particular, to testify about the reasons for which the police had ordered the test purchase (no.   23497/15), the reasons why the buyer had agreed to take part in the test purchase (no.   76426/14), the nature of the buyer’s relationship with the applicant and the police officer in charge of the test purchase (no.   76054/14), and earlier episodes of the applicant selling drugs (no. 28472/15). In one case the buyer had refused to testify, relying on the privilege against self-incrimination, about allegedly being arrested by the police shortly before the test purchase (no. 76054/14). 62.     The applicant in case no. 66152/14 also complained that the trial court had not examined the order for the test purchase which she alleged had not identified her as a suspect in drug dealing, and that it had thus omitted an important piece of evidence in support of her plea of entrapment. (ii)     Systemic problem 63 .     The applicants contended that their cases revealed the presence of the same underlying defect as that identified by the Court in the cases of Veselov and Others (nos.   23200/10 and 2 others, §§ 126-27, 2   October 2012), and Lagutin and Others v.   Russia (nos.   6228/09 and 4   others, §§   93, 115 and 134, 24 April 2014), in particular the absence of a clear and foreseeable procedure for authorising test purchases and operational experiments. They asserted that it amounted to a continuing structural problem as the principles relating to the protection against entrapment set out in the Court’s case-law had not yet been reflected in Russian legislation. 64.     As regards the general measures referred to by Government, they contested their effectiveness and submitted that in practice the manner of conducting undercover operations and the judicial examination of pleas of entrapment had not evolved. 65.     They pointed out that the system of authorising test purchases in Russia by operational-search bodies was out of line with the majority of Council of Europe member States. 66.     The applicants agreed with the Government that, under the existing regulations, a review of the lawfulness and manner of conducting a test purchase could only take place at the stage when the criminal case had reached the court of first instance during the determination of the criminal charges against the defendant. 67.     They also contended that judicial supervision of a test purchase during trial did not provide sufficient guarantees. In their cases there had been clear indications of entrapment, which they had relied on in their defence, but the courts had not examined them with the requisite thoroughness. Even after the adoption of the Supreme Court’s guidelines, the lower courts had continued to examine criminal cases and pass criminal convictions based on the results of undercover operations in the absence of a proper assessment of whether these operations had involved entrapment. 68.     In support of their argument, the applicants submitted that the Court had continued to receive meritorious complaints of entrapment even after the judgments in the cases of Veselov and Others and Lagutin and Others (both cited above), and that it had in several judgments found a violation of Article 6 on account of agent provocateur in cases where the events had taken place subsequent to these two judgments. Those applications had originated from different parts of Russia, demonstrating that the undercover techniques were used in a uniform manner across all regions. 69.     In addition to the above arguments, the applicants’ observations contained the following submissions. 70.     The applicants in cases nos.   77426/14, 15189/15, 23497/15 and 29068/15 stated that, as a general rule, orders for test purchases were not subject to formalities capable of providing safeguards against abuse. In particular, the orders issued in their cases had not contained sufficient information about the reasons for and objectives of the respective test purchases, or a list of other measures taken to verify the suspicion that they had been carrying out illegal activities, because it had not been required by law. 71 .     The applicant in case no. 66152/14 pointed out that, under the existing procedure for ordering test purchases, it was unclear when the decision to conduct the operation was taken: at the moment when the order was issued or immediately before the start of the test purchase. This lack of clarity allowed for manipulation, such as the use of agents provocateurs and the fabrication of evidence. The applicant contested the Government’s arguments that the 2006 and 2010 guidelines of the Supreme Court provided sufficient safeguards and stated that they had not been observed in practice, particularly not in her case. She reiterated that the order for the test purchase conducted against her had not been examined at trial, contrary to those guidelines. She contended that the measures listed in support of the Government’s statement that the problem had been addressed had had no practical effect. Entrapment was not being punished despite the legislative prohibition on entrapping, as it did not entail any sanctions or other negative consequences for officials and other individuals responsible for inciting criminal offences. The courts had a propensity to neglect pleas of entrapment and be complacent with the conduct of the investigating authorities. In short, the bodies conducting operational-search activities were not accountable for overstepping the limits of permissible conduct. (b)    The Government (i)       Individual cases 72 .     The Government contested the allegations of police entrapment. They claimed that in each case the police had had grounds to suspect the applicants of involvement in drug dealing because they had received incriminating information from either undisclosed confidential sources or independent individuals who had turned up voluntarily to report the applicants’ criminal activity to the police. The police had thus been under an obligation to verify the reported suspicious activity. In cases nos. 66152/14, 77426/14, 15189/15, 23497/15, 28472/15, 29068/15 and 30920/15 they specified that the buyers had been private individuals independent from the police who had acted at their own initiative in the test purchases. Relying on Vanyan v. Russia (no.   53203/99, § 46, 15   December   2005), they claimed that the buyers in the present cases had to be distinguished from “anonymous informants” collaborating with law-enforcement authorities on a regular basis or from agents of the law-enforcement authorities. In case no. 23896/15, where the test purchase had been conducted by an undercover police officer, they pointed out that the law did not prohibit test purchases by police officers. 73.     Based on the above, the Government submitted that the police had acted within their investigative powers and had done so by lawfully carrying out the test purchases. 74.     The Government maintained that the present cases involved “sting operations”, which were widely acceptable and free from incitement to commit an offence under the criteria set out in the Court’s case-law (they referred to Calabro v. Italy and Germany (dec.), no.   59895/00, ECHR   2002 ‑ V; Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.), no.   73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI; and Eurofinacom v.   France (dec.), no.   58753/00, ECHR 2004 ‑ VII). Referring to the facts of the present cases, they claimed that the police officers had limited themselves to investigating the criminal activity in an essentially passive manner and had merely joined the ongoing offences, and that the commission of the crime had been predetermined mostly by the applicants’ own behaviour (referring to Malininas v. Lithuania , no.   10071/04, 1   July 2008; also Vanyan, cited above; and Ramanauskas v.   Lithuania [GC], no.   74420/01 , ECHR 2008). 75.     The Government contended that the objectives of the test purchases had been clearly defined in the respective orders signed by the authorised officials. 76.     In case no. 76054/14 the Government also claimed that the applicant’s involvement in drug dealing had been corroborated by other evidence, such as the results of the interception of his telephone communications. 77.     As regards the cases where the buyer’s identity o