THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GAREYEV v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 20488/21)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
26 March 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gareyev v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
Mateja Đurović,
Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 5 March 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 27 March 2021.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr E.A. Arkadyev, a lawyer practising in Vladivostok.
3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant complained that he had been unfairly convicted of drug offences following entrapment by State agents. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW Jurisdiction6. 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 application (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION7. The applicant complained principally that he had been unfairly convicted of drug offences which he had been incited by State agents to commit and that his plea of entrapment had not been properly examined in the domestic proceedings. He 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 his entrapment pleas (see Veselov and Others v. Russia, nos. 23200/10 and 2 others, § 126, 2 October 2012).
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 applicant 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.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12. 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, Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the complaint concerning the unfair conviction for an offence committed as a result of entrapment by State agents admissible;Holds that this complaint discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning unfair conviction for an offence committed as a result of entrapment by State agents;Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(unfair conviction for an offence committed as a result of entrapment by State agents)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Date of test purchase/"operational experiment"
Type of offence
Specific grievances
Final domestic judgment (appeal/cassation court, date)
20488/21
27/03/2021
Farit Madisovich GAREYEV
1964
29/09/2018
cannabis (hash) oil
anonymous/unverified tip, repeated calls, undercover police officer, lack of incriminating information, no evidence that the applicant had been previously involved in drug dealing; no telephone tapping; no search in the applicant’s house, conviction for the drugs transferred during the test purchase, no other episodes
the Ninth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction, 23/11/2021