THIRD SECTION

CASE OF BOKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s no s . 7779/17 and 5 others -

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

26 March 2020

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Bokov and Others v. Russia ,

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

Alena Poláčková , President, Dmitry Dedov , Gilberto Felici , judges, and Liv Tigerstedt , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 5 March 2020 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table .

2 . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3 . The list of applicant s and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4 . The applicant s complained that the y had been unfairly convicted of drug offences following entrapment by State agents .

THE LAW

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

6 . The applicant s complained that they had been unfairly convicted of drug offences which they had been incited by State agents to commit and that their plea of entrapment had not been properly examined in the domestic proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ... ”

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 their entrapment pleas (see Veselov and Others v. Russia , nos. 23200/10 and 2 others, § 126, 2 October 2012).

8 . The Court has consistently found a violation of Article 6 § 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 Veselov and Others , cited above, §§ 126 ‑ 28; Lagutin and Others v. Russia , nos. 6228/09 and 4 others, §§ 124 ‑ 25, 24 April 2014; Lebedev and Others v. Russia , nos. 2500/07 and 4 others, §§ 12 ‑ 16, 30 April 2015; and Yeremtsov and Others v. Russia , nos. 20696/06 and 4 others, §§ 17 ‑ 21, 27 November 2014).

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 s were incompatible with a notion of a fair trial.

10 . These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

11 . Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If 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.”

12 . The Court reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite an infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be a retrial or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV). Given the Court ’ s findings in Kumitskiy and Others v. Russia (nos . 66215/12 and 4 others, § 28 , 10 July 2018), the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in the present cases (see also Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, §§ 80-81, 12 December 2017).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT , UNANIMOUSLY,

Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 March 2020 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

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)

7779/17

15/03/2017

Sergey Valeryevich BOKOV

14/12/1975

04/03/2016

ephedrine

01/04/2016

ephedrine

repeated calls, the applicant was not known to the police as a drug dealer before the information given by the drug user, who then acted as a buyer, lack of incriminating information, no evidence that the applicant profited in any respect from the drug sale

repeated calls, the same drug user who had asked the applicant to provide drugs on the earlier occasion

Kostroma Regional Court,

11/10/2016

21544/17

10/03/2017

Vladislav Alekseyevich MAKAROV

17/04/1995

Lavrova Yelena Viktorovna

Obninsk

05/08/2015

spice

repeated calls, fellow drug user, although anonymised after the events, lack of incriminating information

Kaluga Regional Court,

12/09/2016

21558/17

07/03/2017

Ilya Vladimirovich NEKRASOV

31/07/1985

Bondarchuk Vladimir Yuryevich

Moscow

23/03/2016

heroin

fellow drug user, one episode, repeated calls

Moscow City Court,

07/11/2016

66866/17

31/08/2017

Vitaliy Viktorovich KRAVCHENKO

25/09/1974

Khlebnikov Aleksandr Leonidovich

Levokumskoye

03/10/2013

cannabis

lack of incriminating information, undercover policeman, the applicant is mentally challenged

Stavropol Regional Court,

21/06/2018

7577/18

29/01/2018

Artem Andreyevich VLASOV

11/08/1986

Averin Aleksandr Valentinovich

Vladimir

03/02/2015

heroin

lack of incriminating information, repeated calls, fellow drug user

Vladimir Regional Court,

03/08/2017

37691/18

17/07/2018

Anna Mikhaylovna MARYASOVA

16/05/1982

Mukhin Dmitriy Gennadyevich

Krasnoyarsk

09/08/2016

PVP (synthetic drug of metilefedron )

lack of incriminating information, pressure to sell, anonymous/unverified tip, repeated calls, fellow drug user

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court,

18/01/2018