LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
SAPRYKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 43753/13, 46079/13, 9445/14, 10221/14, 33622/14, 54345/14, 59098/14, 68503/14, 34960/18, 48392/18, 5... • ECHR ID: 001-203017
Document date: May 14, 2020
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 4
SAPRYKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 43753/13, 46079/13, 9445/14, 10221/14, 33622/14, 54345/14, 59098/14, 68503/14, 34960/18, 48392/18, 5... • ECHR ID: 001-203017
Document date: May 14, 2020
Cited paragraphs only
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43753/13 Sergey Yuryevich SAPRYKIN against Russia and 12 other applications
( s ee appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14 May 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková , President, Dmitry Dedov , Gilberto Felici , judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application s lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations and documents submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicant s is set out in the appended table.
The applicants ’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the entrapment by State agents were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”) .
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
The applicants complained that they had been unfairly convicted of drug related criminal offences incited by the police. These complaints fall to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The Court has emphasised, in a number of cases, the role of domestic courts in dealing with criminal cases where the accused alleges that he was incited to commit an offence. Any arguable plea of incitement places the courts under an obligation to examine it and make conclusive findings on the issue of entrapment, with the burden of proof on the prosecution to demonstrate that there was no incitement (see Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, §§ 70-71, ECHR 2008, and Khudobin v. Russia , no. 59696/00, §§ 133-135, ECHR 2006 ‑ XII (extracts)).
The Court notes that the applicants ’ plea of incitement was adequately addressed by the Russian courts, which took the necessary steps to uncover the truth and to eradicate the doubts as to whether the applicants had committed the offence as a result of incitement by an agent provocateur. Their conclusion that there had been no entrapment was based on a reasonable assessment of evidence that was relevant and sufficient. The Court also does not lose sight of the fact that during the criminal proceedings before the Russian courts the applicants either denied the facts imputed to them and/or contested the legal classification of their acts or directly confirmed their involvement in the drug sale, having changed their versions of events. Nevertheless, despite the unclearly formulated incitement defence of the applicants in the domestic proceedings (see Lelyukin v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 70841/10, 25 August 2015; Bagaryan and Others v. Russia ( dec. ), nos. 3346/06 and 4 others, 12 November 2013; Trifontsov v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 12025/02, 9 October 2012 ; and Koromchakova v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 19185/05, 13 December 2016 ), the Russian courts took all possible steps to verify each version to be certain that the acts imputed to the applicants did not result from unlawful actions on the part of investigative authorities.
Having regard to the scope of the judicial review of the applicants ’ plea of incitement, the Court finds that the applicants ’ complaints are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 (see, for similar reasoning, Bannikova v. Russia , no. 18757/06, §§ 74-79, 4 November 2010).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková 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
Date of birth
Representative ’ s name and location
Test purchase date
Type of drugs
Specific grievances
Final domestic judgment (appeal court, date)
43753/13
05/06/2013
Sergey Yuryevich SAPRYKIN
09/07/1983
13/11/2012
amphetamine
undercover agent
Moscow City Court
15/07/2013
46079/13
09/07/2013
Nikolay Alekseyevich VESELOV
05/07/1986
Apacheva Anna Aleksandrovna
Gelendzhik
25/05/2012
3-butanoil-1-metilindzol
undercover agent
Krasnodar Regional Court
20/02/2013
9445/14
21/01/2014
Yuliya Nikolayevna TRATSEVSKAYA
16/02/1981
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
10/11/2012
amphetamine
undercover agent
Moscow City Court
02/09/2013
10221/14
28/01/2014
Mikhail Yevgenyevich GONCHAROV
17/06/1974
10/12/2012
cannabis
undercover agent
Volgograd Regional Court
02/08/2013
33622/14
17/03/2014
Aleksandr Borisovich BULATSEV
30/12/1970
Belousov Yevgeniy Eduardovich
Vladivostok
29/11/2006
cannabis
undercover agent
Primorye Regional Court
21/01/2014
54345/14
20/07/2014
Valeriy Vitalyevich TATAROV
22/03/1988
24/05/2013
cannabis
undercover agent
Bryansk Regional Court
24/01/2014
59098/14
12/08/2014
Yevgeniy Valeryevich KAZNIN
05/02/1993
Knyazkin Sergey Aleksandrovich
Moscow
05/03/2013
amphetamine
undercover agent
St Petersburg City Court
13/02/2014
68503/14
15/10/2014
Daniil Olegovich SHITOV
15/04/1993
Meleshko Aleksandr Valeryevich
St Petersburg
29/04/2013
amphetamine
lack of incriminating information
St Petersburg City Court
02/06/2014
34960/18
10/07/2018
Gennadiy Mikhaylovich DANILOV
26/06/1996
Yeliseyev Konstantin Ivanovich
Velikiy Novgorod
20/03/2015
metamphetamin
03/04/2015
metamphetamin
fellow drug user, lack of incriminating information
Novgorod Regional Court
10/01/2018
48392/18
29/09/2018
Roman Aleksandrovich KAMNEV
12/03/1976
09/01/2015
heroin
13/02/2015
heroin
fellow drug user
fellow drug user
Irkutsk Regional Court
30/03/2018
55008/18
12/11/2018
Georgiy Ilyich SHAPIRO
18/07/1995
Fomin Mikhail Anatolyevich
Moscow
11/05/2016
amphetamine
fellow drug user
Moscow City Court
30/05/2018
55889/18
14/11/2018
Artem Aleksandrovich SERGEYEV
06/02/1989
12/04/2017
cannabis
fellow drug user
Moscow City Court
27/06/2018
25228/19
29/04/2019
Dorzhi Batorovich SAMBUYEV
30/04/1988
Voronin Konstantin Vasilyevich
St Petersburg
17/02/2017
cocaine
fellow drug user
St Petersburg City Court
31/01/2019
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
