CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 août 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6983F43D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF15DF662 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:center } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s700F1260 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBC421C88 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; font-size:8pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 4 August 2020 Published on 24 August 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 62082/10 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich IVANOV against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Russian nationals. The application numbers, the dates of lodging of the applications, the applicants’ names, their personal details, the names of their legal representatives, where applicable, and the details concerning the applicants’ cases and the particulars of the domestic proceedings are set out in the Appendix. The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants have been convicted in criminal proceedings of bribe ‑ related offences. The principal evidence against them derived from operational experiments (undercover operations) conducted in accordance with Section 6 of the Operational-Search Activities Act of Russia. At their trials the applicants claimed that the offences in question were committed as a result of entrapment by the authorities. They alleged the involvement of agents provocateurs . Ms Stepanova (application no. 31415/17) and Mr Romanov (application no. 34980/18) also alleged that the covert audio and video surveillance made in the course of the undercover operation was unlawful. Ms Stepanova (application no. 31415/17) also objected to the admission of the recordings obtained during the undercover operation as evidence in the criminal proceedings. These objections were dismissed by the domestic courts. The respective judgments were held by the judicial bodies on the dates indicated in the table below. The judgments became final. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they had been convicted of criminal offences which they had committed only because they had been incited to do so by an agent provocateur .   Ms Stepanova and Mr Romanov (application nos. 31415/17 and   34980/18) also complain under Article 8 of the Convention that covert audio and video surveillance measures carried out against them in the course of the undercover operation had violated their right to respect for their private life.   Lastly, Ms Stepanova (application no. 31415/17) complains under Article 6 § 1 that her conviction had been based on audio and video recordings which had been obtained unlawfully in the course of the undercover operation and admitted as evidence by the trial court. COMMON QUESTION TO THE PARTIES On account of undercover operations in the applicants’ cases and having regard to the judgments in the case of Nosko and Nefedov v Russia , nos.   5753/09 and 11789/10, 30 October 2014 and in the cases of Veselov and Others v. Russia (nos. 23200/10 and 2 others, 2 October 2012) and Lagutin and Others v.   Russia (nos. 6228/09 and 4 others, 24 April 2014), did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS   Application no. 31415/17   1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article   8 of the Convention as a result of the covert surveillance (see e.g., Akhlyustin v.   Russia , no. 21200/05, 7 November 2017, and Zubkov and   Others v. Russia , nos. 29431/05 and 2 others, 7 November 2017)? In respect of the complaint about that covert audio and video surveillance in the applicant’s workplace conducted by the investigative authorities on 25   November, 3 and 5 December 2014, did the applicant comply with the six-month time-limit prescribed by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against her, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Allan v. the United Kingdom , no. 48539/99, §§ 45-53, ECHR 2002-IX)? In particular, did the admission of the recording of the applicant’s conversations obtained through the covert audio and video surveillance of her office comply with the guarantees of Article 6 § 1? Did the applicant have an opportunity to examine such evidence?   Application no. 34980/18   Has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article   8 of the Convention as a result of the covert surveillance (see e.g., Akhlyustin v.   Russia , no. 21200/05, 7 November 2017 and Zubkov and   Others v.   Russia , nos. 29431/05 and 2 others, 7 November 2017)? In respect of the complaint about that audio and video surveillance conducted by the investigative authorities on 8, 15 and 18   August 2016 during an undercover operation did the applicant comply with the six-month time-limit prescribed by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant’s name date of birth place of residence Represented by Date (s) of operational experiment and offence   Domestic proceedings   62082/10 01/10/2010 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich IVANOV 1975 Kolomna   5 and 9 February 2010   Accepting a bribe in return for issuing a false sick-leave certificate The Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Oryel, 29 July 2010;   The Oryel Regional Court, 14 September 2010.     43918/11 07/06/2011 Nikolay Alekseyevich ISAYEV 1969 St Petersburg 6 March 2010   Accepting a bribe in return for fabrication of an academic record       The Zavodskoy District Court of Oryel, 18 March 2011;   The Oryel Regional Court, 3 May 2011.   10093/12 13/01/2012 Vasiliy Nikolayevich ABRAMOV 1971 Surovikino 16 and 18 February 2011   Accepting a bribe in return for issuing false veterinary documents       The Surovikinskiy District Court of Volgograd Region, 1 August 2011;   The Volgograd Regional Court, 12 September 2011.   53623/15 17/10/2015 Tatyana Sergeyevna ANDREYEVA 1984 Ivanovo   Oleg Ivanovich BIBIK   23 and 29 May 2014   Accepting a bribe in return for issuing a false sick-leave certificate   The Frunzensky district Court of Ivanovo, 10 February 2015;   The Ivanovskiy Regional Court, 21 April 2015.   13251/16 21/02/2016 Soat Dzhumanazarovich ERGASHEV 1950 Cheboksary 29 April 2014   Accepting a bribe in return for issuing a false sick-leave certificate   Tsivilsky District Court of the Chuvash Republic, 18 May 2015;   The Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic, 07 July 2015.     33790/16 24/05/2016 Irina Aleksandrovna NETIKOVA 1981 Stroitel   Yerlan Bulatovich NAZAROV   27 May 2015   Bribing a police officer in return for termination of criminal proceedings The Yakovlevskiy District Court 04 September 2015;   The Belgorod Regional Court, 09 December 2015. 7 31415/17 19/04/2017 Yelena Nikolayevna STEPANOVA 1976 Kizilyurt     Konstantin Ilyich TEREKHOV   5 December 2014   Extortion of money for fraudulent customs clearance of goods     The Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala, 5 December 2016;   The Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan, 21 February 2017.       8 41104/17 05/06/2017 Andrey Sergeyevich AGIYEVICH 1979 Birobidhzan   29 May, 30 July 2014 and 3 June 2014   Bribing a customs officer in return for customs clearance of goods The Birobidzhan District Court of the Yevreyskaya Autonomous Region, 15   August 2016;   The Court of Yevreyskaya Autonomous Region, 06 December 2016.     9 34980/18 19/07/2018 Mikhail Yuryevich ROMANOV 1976 Prudy Russian   Yevgeniy Guryevich RYUMIN Between 1 December 2015 and 31 January 2016; 11 October 2016; 9 and 15 December 2016;   Accepting a bribe in return for aiding and abetting illegal commercial deforestation activities       The Sokolskiy District court of the Vologda Region, 06 December 2017;   The Vologda Regional Court, 26 March 2018.       10 47308/18 18/09/2018 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich NEDVIZHAYEV 1984 Pyatigorsk Russian 5 September 2015   Accepting a bribe in return for dropping administrative charges The Pyatigorsk City Court of the Stavropol Region, 23 November 2017;   The Stavropol Regional Court, 20 April 2018.