CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 septembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sCB8B3528 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sD985FF67 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:14pt } .sABEA9969 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s82160973 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3CCA30AE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sDD009E0F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 }   Published on 14 October 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 34575/19 Altin MIRAKA against Greece lodged on 21 June 2019 communicated on 26 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE By judgment no. 107/10.07.2012 of the Ioannina Criminal Court of Appeal (three-member formation), the applicant was convicted and sentenced to a six-year prison term and a 10,000 euros (EUR) fine, for having been an accessory in transporting drugs. The court found that, after having been contacted by undercover officer A.G. via a police informant’s phone, the applicant transported his associate by car to receive drugs from A.G. By judgment no. 81/2017, the Ioannina Criminal Court of Appeal (five-member formation) upheld the above conviction and sentence. The applicant pleaded that A.G. had incited him to commit the offence and alleged that the undercover operation had not been formally authorised by A.G.’s supervisor, requesting that the latter be examined as witness. The court held that A.G.’s supervisor had authorised the operation and dismissed the request to examine him as witness, as the existing evidence was sufficient. Relying primarily on A.G.’s witness testimony, it dismissed the agent provocateur defence and held that the applicant was not incited: the applicant recognised the informant’s phone number and replied to A.G.’s calls even late at night, he knew about the drugs in question before being contacted by A.G. and expressed interest in their delivery while arranging the relevant details. The Court of Cassation, by judgment no. 1354/2018, dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal and confirmed the appellate court’s findings. It notably held that there was no procedural nullity due to the lack of judicial or prosecutorial supervision of the undercover operation, as such supervision was not provided for under the applicable at the time Law no. 3459/2006. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his conviction was the result of police entrapment and that his allegations were not sufficiently addressed by the domestic courts, notably due to the inadequate supervision of the entrapment operation and to his inability to examine A.G.’s supervisor at the trial, as witness. He also complains of the non-attendance of this witness, under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair trial satisfying the combined requirements of Article   6 §§ 1   and § 3   (d) of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s entrapment allegation sufficiently addressed by the domestic courts (see Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, §§ 49-61, ECHR 2008, and Pătraşcu   v.   Romania , no. 7600/09, §§ 44-47 and 52, 14 February 2017), notably considering the supervision of the undercover operation (see Tchokhonelidze v. Georgia , no. 31536/07, § 51, 28 June 2018) and the applicant’s inability to examine A.G.’s supervisor as a witness (see, Bannikova v. Russia , no. 18757/06, § 65, 4 October 2010, and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v.   the United Kingdom   [GC], nos.   26766/05   and   22228/06, §§   118-47, 15   December 2011, as refined in   Schatschaschwili v.   Germany   [GC], no.   9154/10, §§ 110-31, ECHR 2015).