THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 16971/09 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich VERBNYAK against Russia and 2 other applications (see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22 March 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková, President, Dmitry Dedov, Jolien Schukking, judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application s are 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

A. Joinder of the applications

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

B. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

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; 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. The case of the applicant, Mr Fursov, (application no. 75566/10), where the first conviction was quashed by a supervisory court and was followed by a more thorough review by the trial court of the applicant ’ s version of events is an example of the court ’ s comprehensive approach. The Court is also mindful that Mr Fursov did not challenge that first-instance judgment on appeal (for details see the appended table).

Having regard to the scope of the judicial review of the applicants ’ plea of incitement, the Court finds that the applicants ’ complaint is 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 application s inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 12 April 2018 .

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 name

Date of birth

Test purchase date

Type of drugs

Specific grievances

Final domestic judgment (appeal court, date)

16971/09

17/12/2008

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Verbnyak

03/06/1982

marij uana

30/10/2007

marij uana

04/12/2007

Kaluga Regional Court,

14/11/2008

58395/10

02/09/2010

Nikolay Anatolyevich Nikolayev

20/12/1982

heroin

28/05/2009

heroin

01/06/2009

fellow drug user

fellow drug user

Ivanovo Regional Court,

15/03/2010

75566/10

28/11/2010

Maksim Gennadyevich Fursov

24/05/1982

marijuana

26/10/2009

marijuana

30/10/2009

repeated calls

repeated calls

Promyshlennyy District Court of the Stavropol Region, 14/12/2015