European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

CASE OF KLIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 22625/07 and 8 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

30 November 2017

 

 

 

 

 

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




In the case of Klimov and Others v. Russia,

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

          Luis López Guerra, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2017,

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 applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

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

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

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

II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

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 his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time 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.

III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 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, Veselov and Others v. Russia, nos. 23200/10 and 2 others, 2 October 2012; Mamontov and Others v. Russia, nos. 46796/06 and 2 others, 21 June 2016; and Akulin and Others v. Russia, nos. 14313/07 and 8 others, 22 March 2016), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

13.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.  Decides to join the applications;

 

2.  Declares the applications admissible;

 

3.  Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning entrapment by State agents;

 

4.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

        Liv Tigerstedt                                                             Luis López Guerra

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 name Date of birth	Representative name and location	Type of drugs Test purchase date	Specific grievances	Final domestic judgment (appeal court, date)	Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]
1.	22625/07 06/04/2007	Nikolay Nikolayevich Klimov 06/12/1959	Kriventsov Valeriy Alekseyevich Teploye	Cannabis 02/11/2004	undercover policeman, pressure to sell, lack of incriminating information	Cassation appeal decision, Tula Regional Court, 25/10/2006	3,230
2.	14218/08 06/02/2008	Oleg Vladimirovich Dyadyura 15/05/1975	Karpinskiy  Roman Sergeyevich Moscow	Heroin 16/04/2007	lack of incriminating information, pressure to sell, repeated calls	Moscow City Court, 12/09/2007	3,000
3.	12509/09 02/02/2009	Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Donskoy 21/03/1988	Dobrovolskaya Svetlana Igorevna Moscow	Amphetamin 08/09/2008	lack of incriminating information, repeated calls, fellow drug user	Moscow City Court 19/01/2009	3,000
4.	3154/11 13/12/2010	Sergey Mikhaylovich Kovalev 15/02/1983		Heroin 22/10/2009, 7/11/2009 and 26/11/2009	fellow drug user, repeated calls	Rostov Regional Court, 29/09/2010	3,000
5.	21968/12 10/02/2012	Nikita Vasilyevich Isekenov 02/01/1985	Dobrodeyev  Aleksey Vladimirovich St Petersburg	Methylfentanyl 18/03/2009	fellow drug user, repeated calls, undercover policeman	Appellate cassation decision, St. Petersburg City Court, 10/08/2011	3,000
6.	16340/13 14/02/2013	Maksim Alekseyevich Mikhaylov 08/06/1989	Spiridonov Vyacheslav Leonidovich Novocheboksarsk	Hashish 20/01/2011	fellow drug user	Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic, 12/10/2012	3,000
7.	30203/13 02/04/2013	Roman Sergeyevich Zhdanov 31/01/1977		Heroin 10/08/2012	fellow drug user, lack of incriminating information, repeated calls	Appellate decision, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 9/07/2013	3,000
8.	69862/13 09/10/2013	Ilshat Ilsurovich Mingazov 09/10/1980		Spice 03/10/2012	repeated calls, fellow drug user, lack of incriminating information	Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 31/05/2013	3,000
9.	28992/14 25/03/2014	Andrey Aleksandrovich Artauz 29/10/1975	Khlebnikov Aleksandr Leonidovich Levokumskoye	Hashish oil 16/04/2013	lack of incriminating information	Stavropol Region Court, 15/01/2014	3,000

 




---

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.