THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 72376/11 Polina Alekseyevna SURINA against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14 December 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Peeter Roosma, President, Dmitry Dedov, Andreas Zünd, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 72376/11) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 21 November 2011 by Ms Polina Alekseyevna Surina (“the applicant”), who was represented before the Court by Mr O. Anishchik, a lawyer practising in St. Petersburg;

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning police entrapment to the Government, represented by Mr M. Galperin, the then Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and lately by Mr M. Vinogradov, his successor in that office, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. On 14 March 2011 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow convicted the applicant, an assistant professor at a Russian university, of fraud. At trial, she denied her guilt and asserted that, contrary to what the witness Mr E. had stated at the hearing, the money she had received (35,000 euros) from the latter on 26 April 2010 was not a payment in return for guaranteeing his sister’s admission to the university, but rather a reward for the applicant’s advice on how his sister should prepare for the entrance tests. The trial court heard several witnesses and examined, with the participation of a specialist called by defence, 3 DVD-R containing the results of the operative search activities carried out in respect of the applicant as well as other evidence. It concluded that the applicant was guilty on the basis of the testimonies of the victim, Mr E., and of other witnesses, all cross-examined at trial. In her appeal the applicant notably claimed that the district court had relied on audio and video records made during the operative experiment without their direct examination at trial. On 25 May 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction and rejected the applicant’s appeal, indicating that the district court did not refer to the contested records in order to justify the applicant’s conviction.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

2. As regards the applicant’s complaint about her unfair conviction for an offence allegedly incited by police, the Court notes that her plea of incitement was adequately addressed by the Russian courts, which took the necessary steps to eradicate the doubts as to whether she had committed the offence as a result of incitement by an agent provocateur. Their conclusion that there had been no incitement was based on a careful assessment of evidence that was relevant and sufficient. During the criminal proceedings the applicant denied the facts imputed to her, rather than clearly suggested that a provocation had taken place. Despite this, the Russian courts took steps to verify that the acts imputed to the applicant did not result from unlawful actions on the part of investigative authorities (see Lelyuykin 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).

3. Having regard to the scope of the judicial review of the applicant’s plea of incitement, the Court finds that her 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.

4. The applicant also complained that the trial court had relied on audio and video records which had not been examined at a public and oral hearing. Having examined the materials submitted by the parties, the Court is unable to accept the applicant’s allegations as credible. Indeed, those materials demonstrate that the District Court – as subsequently confirmed by the City Court – justified the applicant’s conviction on other evidence, essentially on the testimonies of witnesses. In view of the above, the Court concludes that this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. Thus, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 20 January 2022.

Olga Chernishova Peeter Roosma Deputy Registrar President