CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 juin 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s1FFC756B { height:52.25pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s6DFB089D { height:85.3pt } .s56C026C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } Published on 26 June 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no.   40018/16 Margar Norikovich UGURYAN against Russia and 10 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 1 June 2023, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia. In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention. In the enclosed list of applications, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website . SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern complaints raised under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention relating to unfair conviction for an offence committed as a result of entrapment by State agents which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Kuzmina and Others v. Russia, nos. 66152/14 and   8   others, 20 April 2021).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS 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) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Date of test purchase/"operational experiment" Type of offence Specific grievances Final domestic judgment (appeal/cassation court, date) Case-law Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law     40018/16* 29/06/2016 Margar Norikovich UGURYAN 1977     25/11/2014 marijuana lack of incriminating information Rostov Regional Court, 10/05/2016 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia , nos. 66152/14 and 8   others, 20   April 2021;   Yeremtsov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 20696/06, 22504/06, 41167/06, 6193/07 and 18589/07, 27 November 2014 Art. 6 (3) (d) - examination/attendance of witnesses - inability to examine the main prosecution witness P. whose pre-trial testimony was admitted as evidence and used against the applicant     57467/19* 31/10/2019 Aminat Magomedovna ABDURAKHMANOVA 1973     11/09/2018 bribe-related offence pressure to proceed with illegal activity Astrakhan Regional Court, 30/05/2019 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia , nos. 66152/14 and 8 others, 20   April 2021;   Ivanov and Others v. Russia , nos. 62082/10 and 6 others, 19   July 2022       12187/21* 25/02/2021 Yunyuye SHEN 1957 Vitaliy Viktorovich Kulapov Moscow 31/12/2017 bribe-related offence pressure to proceed with illegal activity Supreme Court of Russia, 29/08/2022 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia , nos. 66152/14 and 8 others, 20   April 2021;   Ivanov and Others v. Russia , nos. 62082/10 and 6 others, 19   July 2022 Art. 6 (3) (a) - charges/information about the charges - The applicant complains that some of the case material was not duly translated from Russian to Chinese and that prevented him to duly understand the nature of charges against him;   Art. 6 (3) (b) - adequate time/facilities for preparation of defence - The applicant complains that some of the case material was not duly translated from Russian to Chinese, which prevented the applicant from presenting and defending his position in the first-instance and appeal courts           20488/21* 27/03/2021 Farit Madisovich GAREYEV 1964 Eduard Anatolyevich Arkadyev Vladivostok 29/09/2018 cannabis (hash) oil anonymous/unverified tip, repeated calls, undercover police officer, lack of incriminating information, no evidence that the app had been previously involved in drug dealing; no telephone tapping; no search in the app’s house, conviction for the drugs transferred during the test purchase, no other episodes Supreme Court of Russia, 25/10/2022         30227/21 21/10/2021 Sergey Valeryevich BOKOV 1975     04/03/2016 ephedrine repeated calls, the applicant was not known to the police as a drug dealer before the information given by the drug user, who then acted as a buyer, lack of incriminating information, no evidence that the applicant profited in any respect from the drug sale Supreme Court of Russia, 27/12/2021 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia , nos. 66152/14 and 8 others, 20   April 2021; Yeremtsov and Others v. Russia , nos. 20696/06, 22504/06, 41167/06, 6193/07 and 18589/07, 27 November 2014       35368/21 24/06/2021 Maksim Yuryevich NOROK 1979 Vladimir Nikolayevich Boyarko Krasnodar 07/07/2017 marijuana repeated calls, fellow drug user, pressure to sell Supreme Court of Russia, 25/03/2021 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia , nos. 66152/14 and 8 others, 20   April 2021;   Yeremtsov and Others v. Russia , nos. 20696/06, 22504/06, 41167/06, 6193/07 and 18589/07, 27 November 2014       61107/21 09/12/2021 Vadim Albertovich DENIYEV 1959 Andrey Yevgenyevich Golubenko Nea Skiony 22/11/2018 bribe-related crime lack of incriminating information Supreme Court of Russia, 10/08/2021 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia , nos. 66152/14 and 8 others, 20   April 2021;   Ivanov and Others v. Russia , nos. 62082/10 and 6 others, 19   July 2022 Art. 6 (3) (d) - inability to examine the main prosecution witness B. whose pre-trial testimony was admitted as evidence and used against the applicant;   Art. 6 (3) (d) - failure of the authorities to locate attesting witnesses S. and K. and inability to question them in court in relation to their pre-trial testimony       1497/22* 02/12/2021 Maksim Skayper Ogly ALIGULIYEV 1980     16/11/2017 N-metilefedron fellow drug user, lack of incriminating information, pressure to sell, repeated calls Supreme Court of Russia, 02/07/2021 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia , nos. 66152/14 and 8 others, 20   April 2021;   Yeremtsov and Others v. Russia , nos. 20696/06, 22504/06, 41167/06, 6193/07 and 18589/07, 27 November 2014       2812/22 24/11/2021 Andrey Igorevich DEMIN 1981 Arseniy Sergeyevich Korchagin Yaroslavl 06/12/2018 heroin fellow drug user, lack of incriminating information, pressure to sell Supreme Court of Russia, 26/05/2021 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia , nos. 66152/14 and 8 others, 20   April 2021;   Yeremtsov and Others v. Russia , nos. 20696/06, 22504/06, 41167/06, 6193/07 and 18589/07, 27 November 2014 Art. 6 (3) (d) - inability to question main witness for the prosecution, M. Kh., whose pre-trial testimony was used to convict the applicant   10091/22* 10/02/2022 Maksim Aleksandrovich KONSTANTINOV 1983     05/02/2019 N-methylephedrine fellow drug user, anonymous/unverified tip Supreme Court of Russia 22/09/2021 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia , nos. 66152/14 and 8 others, 20   April 2021;   Yeremtsov and Others   v. Russia , nos. 20696/06, 22504/06, 41167/06, 6193/07 and 18589/07, 27 November 2014     14928/22* 20/10/2021 Ruslan Abdulkhakimovich AMANZATOV 1983     05/05/2019 heroin anonymous/unverified tip, lack of incriminating information Supreme Court of Russia, 14/09/2021 Kuzmina and Others v. Russia , nos. 66152/14 and 8 others, 20   April 2021;   Yeremtsov and Others v. Russia , nos. 20696/06, 22504/06, 41167/06, 6193/07 and 18589/07, 27 November 2014