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.
ORLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 7379/11;74374/11;70567/13;10656/14;22216/17;69139/17;83395/17;13233/18 • ECHR ID: 001-202267
Document date: March 5, 2020
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 3
ORLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 7379/11;74374/11;70567/13;10656/14;22216/17;69139/17;83395/17;13233/18 • ECHR ID: 001-202267
Document date: March 5, 2020
Cited paragraphs only
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7379/11 Yuriy Gennadyevich ORLOV against Russia and 7 other applications
(s ee appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 5 March 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 submitt ed 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. 5 9696/00 , §§ 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; and Trifontsov v. Russia ( 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 26 March 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)
7379/11
12/01/2011
Yuriy Gennadyevich ORLOV
15/01/1974
Solodovnikova Yelena Aleksandrovna
Pelagiada
08/05/2009
phenobarbital
24/07/2009
cannabis
F ellow drug user ;
F ellow drug user .
Presidium of the Stavropol Regional Court
13/12/2012
74374/11
17/11/2011
Anna Georgiyevna PROSKURYAKOVA
04/12/1973
18/11/2010
heroin
F ellow drug user, repeated calls .
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 10/11/2011
70567/13
18/10/2013
Artem Andreyevich CHERNOV
03/05/1990
Bogdanova Natalya Anatolyevna
Stavropol
17/04/2012
cannabis
U ndercover policeman .
Stavropol Regional Court
26/06/2013
10656/14
24/02/2014
Ilya Eduardovich YAZOV
08/08/1991
20/10/2011
synthetic mix for smoking
U ndercover policeman, anonymous/unverified tip .
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
13/09/2013
22216/17
01/03/2017
Yevdokiya Ivanovna MEDVEDEVA
14/06/1995
21/09/2015
a mphetamine
F ellow drug user .
Appellate decision, Moscow City Court, 12/12/2016
69139/17
09/08/2017
Sergey Yuryevich VYATKIN
17/04/1974
20/02/2016
heroin
F ellow drug user, lack of incriminating information .
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 20/06/2017
83395/17
14/11/2017
Vitaliy Igorevich KOREPANOV
20/07/1997
19/01/2017
cannabis
F ellow drug user .
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
18/05/2017
13233/18
20/02/2018
Igor Andreyevich GRIGORYEV
23/12/1993
Klyubin Sergey Nikolayevich
Velikiy Novgorod
21/05/2015
hashish
28/05/2015
hashish
A nonymous/unverified tip, undercover police officer ;
A nonymous/unverified tip, undercover police officer .
Novgorod Regional Court
08/09/2017
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
