CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 }   Published on 13 September 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 32368/21 Sergey Mikhaylovich PAVLOV against Russia lodged on 15 June 2021 communicated on 23 August 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s two-day detention on the premises of a military service commission’s depot ( сборный пункт военного комиссариата ), a place where conscripts are assembled prior to assignment to active units. He complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that those measures had no basis in domestic law and were not justified under any of the sub-paragraphs of the provision.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant’s escorting to the military service commission’s depot and his subsequent detention there amount to a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the authorities rely on any permissible ground on which persons may be deprived of their liberty provided in sub-paragraphs of Article 5 § 1 (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 88, 15 December 2016)? If yes, what was the applicable sub-paragraph of that provision?   3.     Were the measures at hand carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no.   23755/07, § 84, 5 July 2016)? What was the national legal basis for the applicant’s detention?