Communicated on 6 July 2020 Published on 27 July 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 73782/17 Sergey Petrovich REZNIKOV against Russia lodged on 2 October 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sergey Petrovich Reznikov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Mr G. Vaypan , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

It appears that there was a criminal case opened against the applicant who was suspected to be a member of an organised criminal group involved in multiple extortions. At the time the applicant was a general director of a business company and a member of an election commission. His wife was a deputy of the municipal council.

On 29 January 2013 the deputy head of the district police department authorised the covert surveillance of the applicant

On the same date at approximately 7:30 p.m. the applicant was arrested by a group of police officers when he got out of his car near a supermarket. The policemen grabbed the applicant, pulled his arms behind his back and searched him. Then they took the applicant to a security room of the supermarket. At 7:45 p.m. police officer Kr. searched the applicant again in the presence of two lay witnesses. Kr. discovered a Samsung cell phone and a box containing nine packages with white substance in one of the pockets of the applicant ’ s coat. The applicant claimed that neither the phone nor the box belonged to him and that the police officers had planted them during his search immediately after the arrest. The subsequent forensic test established that the white substance was cocaine. The forensic expert did not find traces of illegal substances on the applicant ’ s hands. The urine drug test produced negative results.

On 30 January 2013 the applicant was taken to the police station where the investigator drew up an arrest record and opened a criminal case against him on the charges of illegal drug possession.

On 31 January 2013 the decision to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant was quashed and the applicant was released.

On 1 February 2013 the criminal investigation against the applicant was re-opened.

On 10 August 2015 the investigator discontinued the criminal prosecution against the applicant on the charge of extortion.

On 12 January 2017 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow started the trial in the applicant ’ s case.

On 6 April 2017 the District Court found the applicant guilty of illegal drug possession and sentenced him to three years ’ imprisonment. The court relied on the statements made by the police officers and lay witnesses, the search record and forensic evidence. The applicant pleaded not guilty and claimed that the cocaine had been planted on him by the police in order to put pressure on him and his wife. The court interpreted the applicant ’ s argument as an attempt on his part to avoid criminal liability.

On 22 June 2017 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant ’ s conviction on appeal.

On 7 November 2018 the Ryazanskiy District Court of the Ryazan Region replaced the term of imprisonment imposed on the applicant with a fine.

On 20 November 2018 the decision of 7 November 2018 came into effect and the applicant was released.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair. In particular, he alleges that his conviction was based on evidence planted by the police.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Sakit Zahidov v. Azerbaijan , no. 51164/07 , §§ 42-59, 12 November 2015) ? In particular,

(a) What was the reason for the applicant ’ s arrest and subsequent search?

(b) Were the applicant ’ s arrest and bodily search conducted in accordance with domestic rules of criminal procedure? When was the applicant provided with legal assistance?

(c) Why was the record of the applicant ’ s arrest not made on the day of his arrest?

(d) Did the national courts address the applicant ’ s arguments as regards the quality of evidence obtained during his bodily search?