Published on 22 June 2026
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 49331/20
Sergiy Oleksiyovych DEREVYANKIN
against Ukraine
lodged on 28 October 2020
communicated on 1 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant, a drug addict undergoing a replacement therapy at a local hospital, was convicted for drug dealing on account of two isolated episodes of selling some methadone and cannabis to another drug addict (T.), who had been acting at the instructions of the police and who had allegedly incited the applicant by persistently appealing to his compassion through mentioning withdrawal symptoms and being in pain. Neither the judicial rulings authorising the covert investigative measures involving the applicant nor the materials, on the basis of which they had been adopted, were disclosed to the defence. It also appears that the defence was not provided with the possibility to cross-examine the key prosecution witness T.
The applicant alleges that his trial did not comply with the requirements enshrined in Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (d) of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) Was there a clear and foreseeable procedure for authorising, implementing and supervising the covert investigative measures involving the applicant?
(b) Did the authorities have good reasons for mounting the covert operations? Before the applicant was approached by the police informant T., had the investigative authorities possessed preliminary information concerning the applicant’s pre-existing criminal intent? Did that information come from a verifiable source unconnected with the individual involved in the undercover operations?
(c) Did T. exert such an influence on the applicant as to incite the commission of the offences that would otherwise not have been committed?
(d) Was the applicant afforded adequate procedural safeguards enabling him to raise a complaint about entrapment before the national courts?
(e) Was the issue of entrapment examined in an adversarial, thorough and comprehensive manner? Was all relevant information put openly before the trial court or tested in an adversarial manner? Did the courts assess the reasons for mounting the operations, the extent of the police’s involvement in the offences and the nature of any incitement or pressure to which the applicant had been subjected?
2. Was the applicant able to examine the witness for the prosecution T. or to obtain the examination of that witness on his behalf, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?