BANNIKOVA v. RUSIA

(a)Principii generale agenti provocatori33.Curtea accepta faptul ca dezvoltarea fenomenului criminalitatii organizate impune adoptarea de masuri corespunzatoarede catre autoritatile in cauza. Cu toate acestea, a reiterat in mod constant ca dreptul la un proces echitabil din care decurge cerinta justei administrari a actului de justitie se aplica tuturor tipurilor de infractiuni, de la cele mai simple pana la cele mai comlexe. Dreptul la o justa administrare a cauzei detine un loc atat de important intr-o societate democratica incat nu poate fi sacrificat de dragul celeritatii (a se vedea Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, 25, Series A no.11).34.In ceea ce priveste tehnicile de investigatie folosite pentru a combate traficul de droguri si coruptia punctul de vedere al Curtii a fost si ramane ca interesul public nu poate justifica folosirea de probe obtinute ca urmare a provocarii din partea organelor de cercetare penala intrucat ar insemna ca inculpatului sa i se rapeasca dreptul la un proces echitabil inca de la inceput (a se vedea Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, 35-36 si 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; Khudobin v. Russia, no.59696/00, 135, ECHR 2006-XII; Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, 46 si 47, 15 December 2005; si Ramanauskas, cited above, 54).35.Potrivit jurisprudentei sale abundente in materie Curtea a dezvoltat conceptul de act provocator ce incalca art.6 par.1 din Conventie, diferentiindu-l de folosirea unor metode speciale in investigatiile criminale. Ideea de baza e ca desi metodele speciale de investigatie, in special cele sub acoperire, nu incalca prin ele insele dreptul la un proces echitabil, pericolul de provocare din partea autoritatilor pe care il implica presupun ca acestea sa se desfasoare intre anumite limite clar stabilite. (a se vedeaRamanauskas, cited above, 51).

36.Pentru a face diferenta intre provocare si conduita permisa Curtea are in vedere urmatoarele criterii.(i)Testul material al provocarii37.In primul rand se verifica daca infractiunea ar fi fost comisa fara interventia autoritatilor. Definitia actului provocator se regaseste in hotararea Curtii in cauza Ramanauskas 55 potrivit careia:Provocare din partea lucratorilor de politie are loc in situatia in care agentii autoritatii statale implicati fie membrii ai fortelor de securitate sau persoane actionand in urma instructiunilor date de acestia nu se limiteaza la a investiga ilicitele penale intr-o maniera pur pasiva ci exercita o astfel de influenta asupra persoanei in cauza instigandu-l sa comita o fapta prevazuta de legea penala, fapta care in alte conditii nu ar fi fost comisa...38.Pentru a stabili daca conduita reprezentantilor autoritatii statale a fost esentialmente pasiva Curtea va examina motivele ce au stat la baza operatiunii, precum si conduita autoritatilor. Curtea va verifica daca au fost suspiciuni obiective ca reclamantul era implicat in activitatea infractionala sau ca era predispus sa comita infractiunea. 39.Cu privire la acest aspect Curtea a subliniat in cauza Teixeira de Castro 37 si 38 ca autoritatile nationale nu pareau sa aiba niciun motiv pertinent pentru a-l suspecta pe reclamant de o implicare anterioara in actiuni de trafic de droguri:... nu era cunoscut cu antecedente penale, nu facea obiectul niciunei anchete in derulare. Intr-adevat nu era cunoscut lucratorilor de politie care au intrat in contact cu acesta doar prin intermediul lui V.S. si F.O. ...Mai mult, drogurile nu au fost gasite la domiciliul reclamantului; acesta le-a obtinut de la un tert care la randul sau le-a obtinut de la o alta persoana... De asemenea instantele nationale nu au stabilit ca, la momentul privarii sale de libertate, reclamantul avea in posesie o cantitate de droguri mai mare decat cea ceruta de lucratorii de politie. Niciun element de proba nu indica ca reclamantul avea o predispozitie in a comite ilicite penale.40.Aceste criterii au fost reiterate in cauza Eurofinacom v. Frantei ((dec.), no.58753/00, ECHR 2004-VII) si au fost devoltate ulterior. Curtea solicita ca orice informatie vizand intentia de a comite fapta in absenta actului provocator sa fie verificabila, astfel cum s-a statuat in cauzele Vanyan, 49 si Khudobin 134. Agentii autoritatii statale trebuie sa fie apti a demonstra in orice moment ca au avut motive serioase pentru a declansa operatiunea sub acoperire. (a se vedea Ramanauskas, 63 si 64, si Malininas v. Lituania, no. 10071/04, 36, 1 iulie 2008).41.In ceea ce priveste existenta unor antecedente penale, Curtea a precizat ca faptul ca reclamantul a mai fost condamnat anterior nu reprezinta, prin el insusi, o proba ca reclamantul derula o activitate ce imbraca forma ilicitului penal in momentul interventiei agentilor statali. (a se vedea Constantin si Stoian v. Romania, nos. 23782/06 and 46629/06, 55, 29 septembrie 2009):Nothing in the applicants past suggested a predisposition to trafficking in drugs. The fact alone that one of them was a convicted drug user ... cannot change the Courts conclusion. The Court notes that the prosecutor did not give details, or refer to any objective evidence, concerning the applicants alleged unlawful behaviour in his decision to start criminal proceedings. Moreover, no heroin was found either in the first applicants possession or in the second applicants home.42.In plus fata de cele mentionate anterior, in functie de circumstantele cauzei, pot fi avute in vedere si urmatoarele aspecte drept indicii ale unei activitati criminale anterioare sau ale rezolutiei infractionale: reclamantul este familiarizat cu pretul drogurilor si are abilitatea de a procura drogurile intr-un termen scurt (a se vedea Shannon v. Regatului Unit (dec.), no. 67537/01, ECHR 2004-IV) sau castigul realizat de reclamant in urma tranzactiei (a se vedea Khudobin, 134).43.In stransa legatura cu criteriul suspiciunilor obiective este stabilirea momentului in care autoritatile au demarat operatiunea sub acoperire i.e. daca agentii sub acoperire s-au alaturat unei activitati infractionale in derulare sau au instigat la comiterea acesteia. In cauza Sequeira v. Portugal ((dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI) Curtea a statuat ca nu a existat provocare din partea lucratorilor de politie intrucat:In the present case, it has been established by the domestic courts that A. and C. began to collaborate with the criminal-investigation department at a point when the applicant had already contacted A. with a view to organising the shipment of cocaine to Portugal. Furthermore, from that point on, the activities of A. and C. were supervised by the criminal-investigation department, the prosecution service having been informed of the operation. Finally, the authorities had good reasons for suspecting the applicant of wishing to mount a drug-trafficking operation. These factors establish a clear distinction between the present case and Teixeira de Castro, and show that A. and C. cannot be described as agents provocateurs. As the domestic courts pointed out, as in Ldi [Ldi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238)], their activities did not exceed those of undercover agents.44.Acest criteriu a fost folosit inr-un numar mare de cauze in care lucratorii de politie au intervenit doar dupa ce au fost sesizati de catre terte persoane, in mod esential nu colaboratori ai politiei, ca reclamantul a inceput comiterea unui ilicit penal. In Shannon (citata anterior) Curtea a stabilit urmatoarele:Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the States role was limited to prosecuting the applicant on the basis of information handed to it by a third party. The applicant was set up by a journalist, a private individual, who was not an agent of the State: he was not acting for the police on their instructions or otherwise under their control. The police had no prior knowledge of Ms operation, being presented with the audio and video recordings after the event. The Court therefore considers that the situation in the instant case is different from that examined in the Courts judgment in the Teixeira [Teixeira de Castro, cited above] case.45.Mai tarziu, in cauzele Milinien v. Lituania (no. 74355/01, 24 iunie 2008) si Gorgievski v. Fost Republica Yugoslava Macedonia (no.18002/02, 52 si 53, 16 iulie 2009), Curtea, statuand asupra situatiilor implicand terte persoane civile, a confirmat opinia sa anterioara stabilind ca nu a existat o actiune provocatorie. Partea relevanta din considerente hotararii in cauza Milinien case este urmatoarea:37.... the initiative in the case was taken by S, a private individual, who, when he understood that the applicant would require a bribe to reach a favourable outcome in his case, complained to the police. Thereafter the police approached the Deputy Prosecutor General who authorised and followed the further investigation within the legal framework of a criminal conduct simulation model, affording immunity from prosecution to S in exchange for securing evidence against the suspected offender.38.To the extent that S had police backing to offer the applicant considerable financial inducements and was given technical equipment to record their conversations, it is clear that the police influenced the course of events. However, the Court does not find that police role to have been abusive, given their obligation to verify criminal complaints and the importance of thwarting the corrosive effect of judicial corruption on the rule of law in a democratic society. Nor does it find that the police role was the determinative factor. The determinative factor was the conduct of S and the applicant. To this extent, the Court accepts that, on balance, the police may be said to have joined the criminal activity rather than to have initiated it. Their actions thus remained within the bounds of undercover work rather than that of agents provocateurs in possible breach of Article 6 1 of the Convention ...46.Aplicand aceleasi criterii in cauza Malininas (citata anterior) Curtea a stabilit ca operatiunea derulata a avut natura provocatorie:37. The Court observes that it was Officer V who took the initiative when he first approached the applicant, asking where he could acquire illegal drugs. The applicant then offered to supply them himself. As the transaction progressed, the applicant was offered a significant sum of money USD 3,000 to supply a large amount of narcotics. This obviously represented an inducement to produce the goods. The first instance court recognised the determinative part played by the police ... These elements in the present case, in the Courts view, extended the polices role beyond that of undercover agents to that of agents provocateurs. They did not merely join an on-going offence; they instigated it. The necessary inference from these circumstances is that the police did not confine themselves to investigating the applicants criminal activity in an essentially passive manner, but exercised an influence such as to incite the commission of the offence ...47.Atunci cand stabileste limita dintre o operatiune sub acoperire si o actiune instigatorie, Curtea analizeaza daca reclamantul a fost supus vreunei presiuni spre a comite infractiunea.In acest sens a precizat ca abandonarea unei atitudini pasive poate fi relevata de preluarea initiativei in contactarea reclamantului, reinnoirea ofertei in ciuda refuzului initial,insistenta, oferirea unui pret superior celui de pe piata (a se vedea, printre altele, cauza Malininas, citata anterior, 37) sau apelarea la sentimentele de compasiune ale reclamantului mimand sevrajul (a se vedea Vanyan, 11 si 49). Partea relevanta din considerentele hotararii in cauza Ramanauskas (67) este dupa cum urmeaza:Secondly, as is shown by the recordings of telephone calls, all the meetings between the applicant and AZ took place on the latters initiative, a fact that appears to contradict the Governments argument that the authorities did not subject the applicant to any pressure or threats. On the contrary, through the contact established on the initiative of AZ and VS, the applicant seems to have been subjected to blatant prompting on their part to perform criminal acts, although there was no objective evidence other than rumours to suggest that he had been intending to engage in such activity.48.In aplicarea acestor criterii Curtea plaseaza sarcina probei pe umerii autoritatilor. Astfel ea a precizat ca incumba acuzarii sa demonstreze ca nu a avut loc o provocare, in situatia in care sustinerile reclamantului in sens contrar nu sunt in totalitate improbabile (a se vedea Ramanauskas, 70). In practica, autoritatile statale nu pot fi absolvite de vina in absenta unei autorizari si supravegheri formale a operatiunii sub acoperire. In acest context, in cauza Teixeira de Castro (citata anterior, 38) Curtea a constata ca activitatea agentilor sub acoperire nu a facut parte dintr-o operatiune autorizata si supravegheata de un judecator, spre deosebire de cauza Ludi, unde lucratorul de politie in cauza a fost desemnat de judecatorul de instructie care avea cunostinta de operatiune si se incepuse o ancheta penala in cauza. 49.In mai multe cauze impotriva Rusiei (Vanyan, citata anterior, 46 si 47, si Khudobin, citata anterior, 135) Curtea a subliniat importanta unei proceduri clare si previzibile de autorizare a folosirii agentilor sub acoperire precum si necesitatea unei supravegheri atente. In ultima cauza Curtea a constatat incalcarea art.6, observand ca operatiunea fusese autorizata printr-o decizie administrativa de catre organul care o si derulase, decizia necontinand decat informatii sumare cu privire la motivele si scopul operatiunii fara a exista o supervizare a operatiunii din partea unui organ independent (ibid.).50.In ceea ce priveste autoritatea care exercita controlul operatiunii sub acoperire, Curtea a statuat ca o supraveghere judiciara ar fi cea mai potrivita dar, in situatia existentei unor proceduri si garantii adecvate, pot fi avute in vedere si alte organe, precum supravegherea de catre un procuror(a se vedea Milinien, citata anterior, 39).(ii)Procedura urmata ulterior invocarii actiunii provocatorii din partea autoritatii statale 51.Cu exceptia cauzei Teixeira de Castro, unde Curtea a gasit suficiente motive pentru a stabili existenta unui act provocator doar in urma demersului substantial, ca regula generala, Curtea va examina si modul in care instantele nationale au tratat apararea reclamantului vizand provocarea. In fapt, astfel cum o releva si jurisprudenta in materie, Curtea considera acest aspet procedural ca o parte necesar a fi parcursa in examinarea unei cauze cu acest obiect. (a se vedea Ramanauskas 69).Iar in al doilea rand se va verifica modalitatea in care instantele nationale au tratat plangerea reclamantului cu privire la existenta provocarii, precum si modalitatea in care s-au respectat garantiile procedurale. 52.Mai mult in cazurile in care exista contradictii intre versiunile expuse de parti cu privire la situatia de fapt, aspect care impiedica Curtea sa stabileasca, cu un grad suficient de precizie, daca a existat o actiune provocatorie, aspectul procedural devine decisiv (a se vedea Edwards si Lewis v. the Regatul Unit [GC], nos. 39647/98 si40461/98, 46, ECHR 2004-X; V. v. Finlanda, no. 40412/98, 72, 24aprilie 2007; si Constantin si Stoian, 56-57).53.In examinarea procedurii urmate de instantele nationale Curtea are in vedere si rezultatul potential al admiterii unei aparari intemeiate pe provocare.54.Ca punct de pornire, Curtea trebuie sa fie satisfacuta ca instantele nationale au capacitatea de a solutiona astfel de sustineri intr-o maniera compatibila cu dreptul la un proces echitabil. In consecinta va verifica daca o astfel de sustinere a existentei unei actiuni provocatorii din partea agentilor statului ar putea conduce la excluderea mijloacelor de proba sau ar avea consecinte similare. In Ramanauskas (citata anterior) Curtea a precizat urmatoarele:69.Article 6 of the Convention will be complied with only if the applicant was effectively able to raise the issue of incitement during his trial, whether by means of an objection or otherwise. It is therefore not sufficient for these purposes, contrary to what the Government maintained, that general safeguards should have been observed, such as equality of arms or the rights of the defence.70.It falls to the prosecution to prove that there was no incitement, provided that the defendants allegations are not wholly improbable. In the absence of any such proof, it is the task of the judicial authorities to examine the facts of the case and to take the necessary steps to uncover the truth in order to determine whether there was any incitement. Should they find that there was, they must draw inferences in accordance with the Convention ...55.Curtea lasa in general la dispozitia autoritatilor interne sa decida ce procedura trebuie urmata in cazul invocarii actiunii provocatorii. (...)57.Indiferent ce procedura decid sa urmeze instantele interne, Curtea impune ca aceasta sa aiba un caracter contradictoriu, minutios, elaborat si concludent cu privire la problema provocarii. Un exemplu de procedura apreciat de Curte ca satisfacator este descris in cauza Shannon (citata anterior):In the course of [the application to exclude the evidence on the grounds that it had been obtained by entrapment], in which the applicant was represented by counsel, the prosecution witnesses were called to give evidence and were cross-examined and the applicant gave evidence on his own behalf and called a witness in support of his case. After a five-day hearing the trial judge refused to exclude the evidence, holding that its admission would not have an adverse effect on the fairness of any proceedings that might follow. In his ruling, which was based on all the material before him, including the video recording and audio transcripts themselves, the trial judge concluded that the applicant had not been entrapped ...58.In ceea ce priveste principiile contradictorialitatii si al egalitatii armelor, Curtea le-a apreciat ca fiind indispensabile in determinarea naturii provocatorii ai agentilor statului, mai ales in cazul in care organele de ancheta nu furnizeaza toate informatiilepe care le detin.59.Aspectele pe care trebuie sa le lamureasca instantele nationale atunci cand se invoca o astfel de aparare sunt enuntate in cauza Ramanauskas (citata anterior):71.The Court observes that throughout the proceedings the applicant maintained that he had been incited to commit the offence. Accordingly, the domestic authorities and courts should at the very least have undertaken a thorough examination ... of whether or not [the prosecuting authorities] had incited the commission of a criminal act. To that end, they should have established in particular the reasons why the operation had been mounted, the extent of the polices involvement in the offence and the nature of any incitement or pressure to which the applicant had been subjected. ... The applicant should have had the opportunity to state his case on each of these points.60.Mai mult, Curtea a precizat ca recunoasterea comiterii faptei de catre inculpat nu dispenseaza instanta de a analiza apararea privind provocarea (ibid., 72):... Indeed, the Supreme Court found that there was no need to exclude [evidence obtained as a result of the police incitement] since it corroborated the applicants guilt, which he himself had acknowledged. Once his guilt had been established, the question whether there had been any outside influence on his intention to commit the offence had become irrelevant. However, a confession to an offence committed as a result of incitement cannot eradicate either the incitement or its effects.

2