CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 août 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 } .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 }   Published on 13 September 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 772/21 Sergey Mikhaylovich SATIROV against Russia lodged on 1 December 2020 communicated on 26 August 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns detention of the applicant, a stateless person, since 17 May 2019, pending his administrative removal to Georgia. On 14 August 2020 and 15 October 2020 Frunzenskiy District Court of   St Petersburg and St Petersburg City Court respectively dismissed the applicant’s claim of 30   March 2020 for review of his detention and release.     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.     Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s claim of 30   March 2020 for review of his detention and release examined “speedily” (see Navarra v.   France , 23 November 1993, § 28, Series A no. 273 B, Khudyakova v.   Russia , no. 13476/04, §§ 96-101, 8 January 2009)? Did the length of the appeal proceedings for review of the Frunzenskiy District Court’s decision of 14 August 2020, in particular, comply with the “speed” requirement (see Idalov v.   Russia , no. 5826/03, §§   154-58, 22 May 2012)?