European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF UGURYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 40018/16 and 9 others -

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

18 January 2024

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

In the case of Uguryan and Others v. Russia,

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

 Péter Paczolay, President,
 Gilberto Felici,
 Raffaele Sabato, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2023,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in ten 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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. 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.

2. Jurisdiction

6.  The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68-73, 17 January 2023).

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

7.  The applicants complained principally 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.

8.  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, 2 October 2012 and Kuzmina and Others v. Russia, nos. 66152/14 and 8 others, 20 April 2021).

9.  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).

10.  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.

11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

4. Remaning complaints

12.  Some applicants submitted other complaints under the Convention. In view of the Court's findings above, it considers that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicants.

5. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  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 sufficient just satisfaction in the present case.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
3. Declares the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning unfair conviction for an offence committed as a result of entrapment by State agents admissible and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicants;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning unfair conviction for an offence committed as a result of entrapment by State agents;
5. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 January 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Péter Paczolay
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(unfair conviction for an offence committed as a result of entrapment by State agents)