CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mai 2021

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 14 June 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 31147/20 Sergey Viktorovich GASHKOV against Russia lodged on 18 June 2020 communicated on 26 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention, since 2 March 2019, pending his administrative removal to Ukraine. The applicant has no valid identification documents and he claims to be stateless. Assuming that the enforcement of his removal was no longer possible as his possession of Ukrainian citizenship had not been confirmed, on 1 October 2019 the applicant applied to the domestic courts for review of his detention. On 11 October 2019 and 15 January 2020 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Stavropol and Stavropol Regional Court respectively dismissed the applicant’s claim. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, has the applicant’s detention pending removal been justified within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention (see Azimov v.   Russia , no. 67474/11, §§ 160-74, 18   April 2013)?   2.     Did the length of the appeal proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article   5 §   4 of the Convention (see Idalov v.   Russia , no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)?