THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KARALOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 26314/20 and 4 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

27 October 2022

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

In the case of Karalov and Others v. Russia,

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

Darian Pavli , President,

Andreas Zünd ,

Frédéric Krenc , judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 6 October 2022,

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 applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained that they 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 applicants 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 applicants 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. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Kumitskiy and Others v. Russia, nos. 66215/12 and 4 others, § 17, 10 July 2018), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes a sufficient just satisfaction in the present case.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli

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

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Test purchase date

Type of drugs

Specific grievances

Final domestic judgment (appeal court, date)

26314/20

17/05/2020

Aleksandr Vasilyevich KARALOV

1961Viktor Mikhaylovich Nemerovets

Khabarovsk

16/02/2017

heroin

lack of incriminating information, pressure to sell

Khabarovsk Regional Court, 04/02/2020

41984/20

14/08/2020

Ilya Andreyevich CHEKHLOV

1980Tatyana Sergeyevna Mironova

St Petersburg

03/12/2019

amphetamine

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

St Petersburg City Court, 26/02/2020

43483/20

21/05/2020

Dmitriy Yuryevich RUDNEV

1974Vladlen Aleksandrovich Tsiskarishvili

Moscow

09/02/2019

cocaine

lack of incriminating information, pressure to sell, fellow drug user, repeated calls

Moscow City Court, 04/12/2019

53785/20

09/11/2020

Maksim Sergeyevich SAMODELOV

1982Irina Aleksandrovna Suslova

Vyborg

06/12/2018

hashish

fellow drug user, pressure to sell, repeated calls, anonymous/unverified tip

St Petersburg City Court, 08/06/2020

4639/21

23/12/2020

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SAMUROV

1991Narine Pavlovna Ayrapetyan

Stavropol

13/06/2018

hashish

undercover police officer, repeated calls, pressure to sell, absence of prior verifiable information about any criminal activity on the applicant’s part, the plea of entrapment was not properly examined by the courts

Stavropol Regional Court, 23/06/2020