CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 27 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2B644500 { height:31.3pt } .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 } .s22725D7A { height:24.85pt } .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 } .s5152E8B1 { height:43.9pt }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF KARALOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 26314/20 and 4 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 27 October 2022   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Karalov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli , President,   Andreas Zünd ,   Frédéric Krenc , judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 6 October 2022, 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.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Kumitskiy and Others v. Russia, nos. 66215/12 and 4 others, § 17, 10 July 2018), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes a sufficient just satisfaction in the present case. 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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 October 2022, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   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 Year of birth Representative’s name and location Test purchase date Type of drugs Specific grievances Final domestic judgment (appeal court, date)     26314/20 17/05/2020 Aleksandr Vasilyevich KARALOV 1961 Viktor Mikhaylovich Nemerovets Khabarovsk 16/02/2017 heroin lack of incriminating information, pressure to sell Khabarovsk Regional Court, 04/02/2020     41984/20 14/08/2020 Ilya Andreyevich CHEKHLOV 1980 Tatyana Sergeyevna Mironova St Petersburg 03/12/2019 amphetamine fellow drug user, anonymous/unverified tip, lack of incriminating information, repeated calls St Petersburg City Court, 26/02/2020     43483/20 21/05/2020 Dmitriy Yuryevich RUDNEV 1974 Vladlen Aleksandrovich Tsiskarishvili Moscow 09/02/2019 cocaine lack of incriminating information, pressure to sell, fellow drug user, repeated calls Moscow City Court, 04/12/2019     53785/20 09/11/2020 Maksim Sergeyevich SAMODELOV 1982 Irina Aleksandrovna Suslova Vyborg 06/12/2018 hashish fellow drug user, pressure to sell, repeated calls, anonymous/unverified tip St Petersburg City Court, 08/06/2020     4639/21 23/12/2020 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SAMUROV 1991 Narine Pavlovna Ayrapetyan Stavropol 13/06/2018 hashish undercover police officer, repeated calls, pressure to sell, absence of prior verifiable information about any criminal activity on the applicant’s part, the plea of entrapment was not properly examined by the courts Stavropol Regional Court, 23/06/2020