CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 18 janvier 2024

.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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sF1F8E4D4 { width:130.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; 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 }     FIRST SECTION CASE OF UGURYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 40018/16 and 9 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 18 January 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Uguryan and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Péter Paczolay , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in ten 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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. 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. Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally 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. 8.     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, 2   October 2012 and Kuzmina and Others v.   Russia , nos. 66152/14 and 8 others, 20 April 2021). 9.     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). 10.     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. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Remaning complaints 12.     Some applicants submitted other complaints under the Convention. In view of the Court’s findings above, it considers that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicants. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     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 sufficient just satisfaction in the present case. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning unfair conviction for an offence committed as a result of entrapment by State agents admissible and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicants; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning unfair conviction for an offence committed as a result of 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 18 January 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Péter Paczolay   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (unfair conviction for an offence committed as a result of entrapment by State agents) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Date of test purchase/ "operational experiment" Type of offence Specific grievances Final domestic judgment (appeal/cassation court, date) Case-law     40018/16 29/06/2016 Margar Norikovich UGURYAN 1977     25/11/2014 marijuana lack of incriminating information Rostov Regional Court, 10/05/2016 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia , nos.   66152/14 and 8 others, 20   April 2021, drug-related crime:   Yeremtsov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 20696/06, 22504/06, 41167/06, 6193/07 and 18589/07, 27 November 2014     57467/19 31/10/2019 Aminat Magomedovna ABDURAKHMANOVA 1973     11/09/2018 bribe-related offence pressure to proceed with illegal activity Astrakhan Regional Court, 30/05/2019 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia, nos.   66152/14 and 8 others, 20   April 2021     12187/21 25/02/2021 Yunyuye SHEN 1957 Kulapov Vitaliy Viktorovich Moscow 31/12/2017 bribe-related offence pressure to proceed with illegal activity Supreme Court of Russia, 29/08/2022 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia, nos.   66152/14 and 8 others, 20   April 2021   Ivanov and Others v. Russia, nos.62082/10 and 6 others, 19   July 2022.     30227/21 21/10/2021 Sergey Valeryevich BOKOV 1975     04/03/2016 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 Supreme Court of Russia, 27/12/2021 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia, nos.   66152/14 and 8 others, 20   April 2021   Yeremtsov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 20696/06, 22504/06, 41167/06, 6193/07 and 18589/07, 27 November 2014     35368/21 24/06/2021 Maksim Yuryevich NOROK 1979 Boyarko Vladimir Nikolayevich Krasnodar 07/07/2017 marijuana repeated calls, fellow drug user, pressure to sell Supreme Court of Russia, 25/03/2021 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia, nos. 66152/14 and 8 others, 20   April 2021, drug-related crime:   Yeremtsov and Others v. Russia, nos. 20696/06, 22504/06, 41167/06, 6193/07 and 18589/07, 27 November 2014     61107/21 09/12/2021 Vadim Albertovich DENIYEV 1959 Golubenko Andrey Yevgenyevich Nea Skiony 22/11/2018 bribe-related crime lack of incriminating information Supreme Court of Russia, 10/08/2021 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia, nos.   66152/14 and 8 others, 20   April 2021,   Ivanov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 62082/10 and 6 others, 19 July 2022     1497/22 02/12/2021 Maksim Skayper Ogly ALIGULIYEV 1980     16/11/2017 N-metilefedron fellow drug user, lack of incriminating information, pressure to sell, repeated calls Supreme Court of Russia, 02/07/2021 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia, nos.   66152/14 and 8 others, 20 April 2021,   Yeremtsov and Others v.   Russia, nos. 20696/06, 22504/06, 41167/06, 6193/07 and 18589/07, 27 November 2014     2812/22 24/11/2021 Andrey Igorevich DEMIN 1981 Korchagin Arseniy Sergeyevich Yaroslavl 06/12/2018 heroin fellow drug user, lack of incriminating information, pressure to sell Supreme Court of Russia, 26/05/2021 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia, nos.   66152/14 and 8 others, 20   April 2021,   Yeremtsov and Others v.   Russia, nos. 20696/06, 22504/06, 41167/06, 6193/07 and 18589/07, 27 November 2014     10091/22 10/02/2022 Maksim Aleksandrovich KONSTANTINOV 1983     05/02/2019 N-methylephedrine fellow drug user, anonymous/unverified tip Supreme Court of Russia, 22/09/2021 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia, nos.   66152/14 and 8 others, 20   April 2021,   Yeremtsov and Others v.   Russia, nos. 20696/06, 22504/06, 41167/06, 6193/07 and 18589/07, 27 November 2014   14928/22 15/02/2022 Ruslan Abdulkhakimovich AMANZATOV 1983     05/05/2019 heroin anonymous/unverified tip, lack of incriminating information Supreme Court of Russia, 14/09/2021 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia, nos.   66152/14 and 8 others, 20   April 2021,   Yeremtsov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 20696/06, 22504/06, 41167/06, 6193/07 and 18589/07, 27 November 2014