5.  The applicant was born in 1961. When lodging his application, he was detained in Hagen Prison. He was released on 12 July 2011. 6.  On 18 October 2007 the Aachen District Court authorised criminal investigations against S. and five other persons (not including the applicant) to be conducted by up to five undercover police officers, in accordance with Article 110a § 1 no. 1 and Article 110b § 2 no. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraphs 24-25 below). Criminal investigation proceedings on suspicion of drug trafficking had previously been instituted against the six suspects. Prior to the District Court’s order, the police’s suspicion against the suspects had been confirmed, in particular, by information obtained via telephone tapping and police surveillance of the suspects. 7.  The police decided to attempt to establish contacts between S. and the undercover agents via the applicant, a good friend of S. and business partner for real estate transactions. The applicant, who had no criminal record, was not, at that time, suspected of any involvement in drug trafficking. 8.  From 16 November 2007 onwards, two undercover police officers, P. and D., established contacts with the applicant. They visited him in the restaurant he ran and pretended to be interested in purchasing real property for running a club. In the following weeks the applicant made a number of offers of real property to the undercover agents and visited the estates with them. 9.  The applicant subsequently established contacts between the two undercover agents and S. for organising an international contraband trade in cigarettes after one of the undercover agents had pretended to have a suitable lorry at hand for transporting the cigarettes abroad. S. refused, however, to communicate directly with undercover agent P. by telephone and proposed to further communicate via the applicant. When undercover agent D. disclosed to the applicant on 23 January 2008 that he considered that the risk of being caught with smuggling cigarettes was too high compared to the possible profits, the applicant disclosed that they (that is, S. and others and himself) would also traffic in cocaine and amphetamine. He stated that he did not want to be involved in the drug trafficking itself, but would only draw commissions. The undercover agents showed interest in transporting and purchasing drugs. 10.  However, on 1 February 2008 the applicant, having been telephoned by undercover agent P., explained to P. that he was no longer interested in any business other than the restaurant he ran. 11.  On 7 February 2008 the Aachen District Court, having regard to the applicant’s submissions to undercover agent D. on 23 January 2008, extended the court order of 18 October 2007 authorising investigations so as to cover also the applicant. 12.  On 8 February 2008 undercover agent P. visited the applicant in his restaurant and dispersed the applicant’s suspicions against the undercover agents as well as his fear of having to serve a prison sentence in case the drug deal was discovered. The applicant thereupon continued arranging two purchases of drugs (cocaine and amphetamine) by the undercover agents from S. on 16 February 2008 (10 kilograms of amphetamine paste and 40 grams of cocaine) and on 12 March 2008 (some 250 kilograms of amphetamine paste). On the latter day, the applicant and S. were arrested after the delivery of the drugs to the undercover agents. The applicant would have received a commission of more than EUR 50,000 from S. for having arranged the second contract between S. and the undercover agents. 13.  On 22 October 2008 the Aachen Regional Court convicted the applicant of two counts of drug trafficking and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. 14.  The Regional Court, having established the facts as described above (see paragraphs 6-12), noted that the applicant had confessed to the offences in the hearing. It had further read out in the hearing the written reports of undercover agents D. and P., drawn up throughout the undercover measure, with the consent of the parties. It noted that the applicant had accepted that these reports were essentially correct. It considered that the applicant’s allegation that it had been undercover agent D. and not himself who had first come up with the possibility of drug trafficking on 23 January 2008, and that he had only responded to that proposal, had not been proven. It noted in that context that the undercover agents had been careful throughout the investigations not to propose illegal business transactions or specific types or amounts of drugs first, but had waited for their respective counterparts to make the first step before becoming more concrete themselves. 15.  In fixing the sentence, the Regional Court considered the considerable quantities of drugs trafficked as an aggravating factor. However, there were considerable elements leading to a mitigation of the sentence, which had to be considered as relatively mild in view of the amount of drugs trafficked. The applicant had in essence confessed to the offences and did not have any prior convictions. He had further trafficked mainly amphetamine, which was not a hard drug. In view of the undercover agents’ involvement, there had also not been a risk that the drugs would freely circulate on the market. 16.  The Aachen Regional Court further stated that it was a particularly weighty factor mitigating the sentence that the applicant had been incited (verleitet) by a State authority to commit offences. Prior to the undercover measure concerning him, there had not been any suspicion of involvement in drug trafficking against the applicant, who did not have a criminal record. The police had only known that the applicant was a friend of S., against whom there had been strong suspicions of involvement in drug trafficking, and that the applicant had already arranged the sale of real estate together with S. The Regional Court considered that, nevertheless, the applicant had not been instigated (angestiftet) to commit the offences at issue. The undercover agents had waited for the applicant to raise the possibility of arranging an international contraband trade in cigarettes when the arrangement of a real estate transaction had not been successful. The agents had again waited for the applicant to raise the possibility of drug trafficking after the undercover agents had made him understand that they considered that the risk of being caught with smuggling cigarettes was too high compared to the possible profits. 17.  Moreover, the Regional Court stressed that the applicant had then renounced any drug business on 1 February 2008 for fear of punishment. However, the undercover agents nevertheless contacted the applicant again on 8 February 2008, when the court order authorising recourse to undercover agents had been extended so as to cover also the applicant, and dispersed his doubts. The Regional Court considered that the way in which the undercover measure had been organised, that is, by contacting the applicant, a person not suspected of an offence, in order to establish contacts with suspect S., had entailed a risk, from the outset, that the applicant became implicated in drug trafficking. 18.  The Regional Court further found that the applicant’s involvement in the offences had been less important than that of S., as he had only arranged contacts between S. and the undercover agents and had shielded off S. against them. The applicant obviously did not have any contacts with the drug scene apart from his contacts with S. 19.  The applicant subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law against the Regional Court’s judgment. He complained, in particular, that he had been incited by the police to commit the offences he had later been found guilty of. This had breached the rule of law. There was, therefore, a bar to the criminal proceedings against him, which should have been discontinued. 20.  On 8 April 2009 the Federal Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as ill-founded. The decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 20 April 2009. 21.  On 12 May 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court. Relying, inter alia, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on the corresponding provisions of the Basic Law, the applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial. He argued that the undercover agents had incited him to commit drug offences which he would not have committed otherwise. The use of the evidence obtained thereby in the criminal proceedings against him had rendered these proceedings unfair. 22.  On 28 May 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the applicant’s constitutional complaint against the judgment of the Aachen Regional Court and the decision of the Federal Court of Justice without giving reasons (file no. 2 BvR 1029/09). The decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 3 June 2009. 23.  On 16 June 2011 the Aachen Regional Court ordered the applicant’s conditional release on 12 July 2011 after the applicant had served two thirds of his sentence.