Communicated on 12 September 2019

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 72376/11 Polina Alekseyevna SURINA against Russia lodged on 21 November 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Polina Alekseyevna Surina , is a Russian national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Moscow.

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

The applicant was a professor at the Moscow State University.

On 7 April 2010 the Moscow Interior Department noted that it possessed information that the applicant regularly offered to ensure a candidate student ’ s admission into the Moscow State University in exchange for a sum of money. It ordered an “operative experiment with the use of technical equipment”.

In the course of the operative experiment a Mr E. gave the applicant 30,000 euros in exchange for a promise that his sister would be admitted as a student at the University. The meetings between the applicant and E. were registered with a hidden voice recorder. The last meeting during which the money was handed in to the applicant was filmed with a hidden video camera.

On 14 March 2011 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced her to three years ’ imprisonment, but suspended the sentence and put her on three years ’ probation. It relied, in particular, on statements by E. and by several police officers who had supervised the operative experiment, and on the audio and video records made during the operative experiment.

On 25 May 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that she was unfairly convicted of fraud that she had been incited by the police to commit and that her plea of entrapment was not properly examined in the domestic proceedings, in particular because the domestic courts refused to admit in evidence the document issued by “ Vympelkom ” showing prolonged and frequent contacts between E. and the police prior to the commencement of the operative experiment. She also complains that the domestic courts relied on audio and video records that had not been examined at the trial.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against her, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Was the applicant incited to commit the offence for which she was sentenced by the domestic courts (see Lagutin and Others v. Russia , nos. 6228/09, 19123/09, 19678/07, 52340/08 and 7451/09, 24 April 2014; Veselov and Others v. Russia , nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, 2 October 2012 ; Bannikova v. Russia , no. 18757/06, 14 October 2010; Vanyan v. Russia , no. 53203/99, § 49, 15 December 2005; Khudobin v. Russia , no. 59696/00, § 134, ECHR 2006 ‑ ... ( extracts ) ; Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal , 9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ IV ) ?

– Which specific information pointing to the applicant ’ s prior criminal intent the authorities possessed and relied on before authorising the operative experiment involving her? The Government are requested to provide basis of that information (documents, transcripts, etc.).

– Was the applicant afforded adequate procedural safeguards enabling her to raise a complaint of entrapment before the national courts? In particular, did the refusal to accept in evidence the document issued by “ Vympelkom ” showing prolonged and frequent contacts between E. and the police prior to the commencement of the operative experiment undermine the applicant ’ s ability to effectively argue the entrapment defence? Did the domestic courts consider the relevance of that document and provide sufficient reasons for their decision not to admit it in evidence?

– Was the issue of entrapment examined in an adversarial, thorough and comprehensive manner?

(b) Did the fact that the audio and video records were not examined at the trial violate the principle of the immediacy in criminal proceedings (see Cerovšek and Božičnik v. Slovenia , nos. 68939/12 and 68949/12, § 43, 7 March 2017)? Were there exceptional circumstances that could justify dispensing with examining these records at a public and oral hearing? Did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons for their decision not examine the above records at a public and oral hearing?