THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7591/12
Yaroslav Nikolayevich SKRIPNIKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 February 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 January 2012,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Yaroslav Nikolayevich Skripnikov, was born in the town of Brovary.
The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the entrapment by State agents was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
Complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
The applicant complained that he had been unfairly convicted of drug-related criminal offences incited by the police. This complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The Court has emphasised, in a number of cases, the role of domestic courts in dealing with criminal cases where the accused alleges that he was incited to commit an offence. Any arguable plea of incitement places the courts under an obligation to examine it and make conclusive findings on the issue of entrapment, with the burden of proof on the prosecution to demonstrate that there was no incitement (see Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, §§ 70-71, ECHR 2008, and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 133-135, ECHR 2006‑XII (extracts)).
The Court observes that during the criminal proceedings before the Russian courts the applicant denied the facts imputed to him, including having entirely contested his having had any part in the crime. He further did not raise the incitement claim on appeal properly, having insisted that he had only wanted to assist his friend, that he had had no knowledge of any drug deeds going on and that he had had no intention to sell drugs.
It follows that the incitement defence was not formulated clearly and in good time by the applicant in the domestic proceedings (see Lelyukin v. Russia (dec.), no. 70841/10, 25 August 2015; Bagaryan and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 3346/06 and 4 others, 12 November 2013; and Trifontsov v. Russia (dec.), no. 12025/02, 9 October 2012). Accordingly, this application brought before the Court must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 8 March 2018.
Liv TigerstedtLuis López Guerra
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Test purchase date
Type of drugs
Final domestic judgment (appeal court, date)
7591/12
30/01/2012
Yaroslav Nikolayevich Skripnikov
10/07/1982
Rybanova Galina Konstantinovna
Obninsk
14/08/2010
mephedrone
15/08/2010
mephedrone
Kaluga Regional Court 26/08/2011
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy