Last Updated on October 27, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicantscomplained that they had been unfairly convicted of drug offences following entrapment by State agents.
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 Karalovand 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 applicantscomplained that they had been unfairly convicted of drug offences following entrapment by State agents.
THE LAW
I. 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.
II. 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.
III. 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,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning entrapment by State agents;
4. Holdsthat 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) |
| 1. | 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 |
| 2. | 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 |
| 3. | 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 |
| 4. | 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 |
| 5. | 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 |
Leave a Reply