CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left }   Communicated on 19 March 2015 and 29 March 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no 29961/14 R.K. against Russia lodged on 15 April 2014     The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Before ordering the applicant’s administrative removal on 20   June 2015, did the authorities consider the applicant’s claim that he would be exposed to the risk of suffering treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if returned to Syria or any other country? In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents submitted, would the applicant face a real risk of suffering treatment in breach of Article 3 if the removal order of 20   June 2015 were to be enforced? The Government are required to inform the Court of the outcome of the applicant’s appeals against the decision of 20 June 2015 and his applications for temporary asylum, and to provide copies of relevant documents.   2.     In the light of the answers to question no. 1 above and having regard to the decision of 2 June 2014 overruling the applicant’s administrative removal, can the applicant still claim to be a victim in the context of his complaint that he would suffer treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the event of his removal to Syria?   3.     Did the applicant’s arrest on 20 June 2015 and his subsequent detention breach Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     Did the deprivation of the applicant’s liberty during the above period fall under one or more sub-paragraphs of Article 5 § 1? (b)     If so, was the deprivation of liberty during the above period “lawful” and not arbitrary? -     What was the legal basis for the applicant’s detention during the period in question? -     Were the provisions governing the applicant’s detention during the above period sufficiently clear and foreseeable in their application? -     Did the decision of 20 June 2015 specify a time-limit for the applicant’s detention? If not, until what date was the applicant deprived of his liberty on the basis of that decision? -     Has there been a realistic prospect of the applicant’s expulsion to Syria or any other country? Have the administrative removal proceedings been conducted with special diligence?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal a procedure whereby the lawfulness of his detention pending removal, as ordered on 20 June 2015 can be examined by a court and his release be ordered, as required by Article   5   §   4 of the Convention?