CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 août 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 31 August 2020 Published on 21 September 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 23274/13 Abdikadyr Mokhamed SHARYF against Ukraine lodged on 17 May 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the detention of a Somalian asylum seeker in Ukraine which he considers was in breach of Article 5 of the Convention, notably because his expulsion to Somalia was allegedly not possible. Having left Somalia because of the alleged danger he faced there, the applicant eventually entered Ukraine from Russia clandestinely. On 21   March 2012 he was arrested by the Ukrainian Border Guards while trying to cross into Hungary outside of a border control point. He had no identity documents. On 23 March 2012 the Zakarpattya Administrative Court ordered his expulsion. No country of destination was indicated. On 5 April 2012 the applicant was placed in a centre for temporary accommodation of aliens in irregular situation and on 21 March 2013 he was released. The applicant’s asylum application was initially rejected but on 8   November 2012 the Volyn Circuit Administrative Court quashed the refusal and ordered the Migration Service to re-examine his application. The applicant’s authorisation to stay in Ukraine was extended until completion of those proceedings.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, in so far as his detention may have been effected under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, were the proceedings for his expulsion conducted with due diligence (see, for example, Sadaykov v.   Bulgaria , no. 75157/01, §§   23-27, 22 May 2008, Auad v.   Bulgaria , no.   46390/10, §§   128-35, 11   October 2011, and Khamroev and Others v.   Ukraine , no.   41651/10, §§   85 and 90-99, 15   September 2016)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal a procedure whereby the lawfulness of his detention could be examined by a court and his release be ordered, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular could the applicant take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his continued detention could be examined or was there a procedure for a periodic review of his detention (see, for example, Abdulkhakov   v.   Russia , no.   14743/11, §§   210-18, 2 October 2012, Aden Ahmed v. Malta , no. 55352/12, §§ 120-24, 23 July 2013, and R.   v.   Russia , no. 11916/15, §§ 99-101, 26 January 2016)?   The parties are invited to inform the Court of the applicant’s current residence status and situation.