The applicant complained that he had been unfairly convicted of drug offences following entrapment by State agents. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Khryapko v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Darian Pavli, President, PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 18 February 2008.<\/p>\n 2. The applicant was represented by Ms Y. Yefremova, a lawyer practising in Moscow.<\/p>\n 3. The Russian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the application.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 5. The applicant complained that he had been unfairly convicted of drug offences following entrapment by State agents. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The applicant complained principally that he had been unfairly convicted of drug offences which he had been incited by State agents to commit and that his plea of entrapment had not been properly examined in the domestic proceedings. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n 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 his entrapment pleas (see\u00a0Veselov and\u00a0Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a023200\/10 and\u00a02\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a0126, 2\u00a0October 2012).<\/p>\n 8. The Court has consistently found a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 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\u00a0Veselov and\u00a0Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0126\u201128; Lagutin and\u00a0Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a06228\/09 and\u00a04\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0124\u201125, 24\u00a0April 2014; Lebedev and\u00a0Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a02500\/07 and\u00a04\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a012\u201116, 30\u00a0April 2015; and Yeremtsov and\u00a0Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a020696\/06 and\u00a04\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a017\u201121, 27\u00a0November 2014).<\/p>\n 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 applicant were incompatible with a notion of a fair trial.<\/p>\n 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 11. The applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.<\/p>\n 12. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles\u00a034 and\u00a035 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.<\/p>\n It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 13. Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Kumitskiy and Others v. Russia, nos. 66215\/12 and 4 others, \u00a7 17, 10 July 2018), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes a sufficient just satisfaction in the present case.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Declares the complaints concerning the entrapment by State agents admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning entrapment by State agents;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any\u00a0non-pecuniary\u00a0damage sustained by the applicant.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 September 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Darian Pavli _____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX
\nCASE OF KHRYAPKO v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 26190\/08)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n15 September 2022<\/p>\n
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd,
\nMikhail Lobov, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
\nHaving deliberated in private on 25 August 2022,
\nDelivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nApplication raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\n(entrapment by State agents)<\/p>\n\n\n
\n Application no.<\/strong>
\nDate of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\nApplicant\u2019s name<\/strong>
\nYear of birth<\/strong><\/td>\nRepresentative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\n Test purchase date<\/strong>
\nType of drugs<\/strong><\/td>\nSpecific grievances<\/strong><\/td>\n Final domestic judgment (appeal court, date)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n 26190\/08
\n18\/02\/2008<\/td>\nSergey Yuryevich KHRYAPKO<\/strong>
\n1970<\/td>\nYefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna
\nMoscow<\/td>\n27\/10\/2006
\nhashish<\/td>\npressure to sell, repeated calls<\/td>\n 27\/11\/2007 by the Supreme Court of the Khakassia Republic<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n