THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 58917/15 Sergey Anatolyevich SENCHENKO against Russia and 3 other applications

( s ee appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 April 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 submitted by the respondent Government in applications nos. 58917/15, 48933/17 and 1915/19 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant in the application no. 48933/17,

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 i n 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; and Trifontsov v. Russi a ( dec. ), no. 12025/02, 9 October 2012), 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.

Done in English and notified in writing on 4 June 2020 .

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)

58917/15

15/11/2015

Sergey Anatolyevich SENCHENKO

29/03/1974

28/03/2014

cannabis oil

repeated calls

Primorye Regional Court,

28/08/2015

48933/17

27/06/2017

Yevgeniy Konstantinovich GAVRILOGLU

11/02/1991

12/09/2017

cannabis

lack of incriminating information

Murmansk Regional Court,

12/01/2017

59838/18

20/11/2018

Bogdan Olegovich GOLOKOZ

24/07/1998

Bondarchuk Vladimir Yuryevich

Moscow

28/06/2017

Hashish

lack of incriminating information

Moscow Regional Court,

26/06/2018

1915/19

12/12/2018

Vladislav Olegovich BELOGUBETS

03/03/1993

Tereznikov Andrey Yuryevich

Rostov- na - Donu

30/03/2017

bath salts (monkey dust)

fellow drug user

Rostov Regional Court,

13/06/2018