Communicated on 1 December 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 30831/15 Viktor Vladimirovich RAZGOVOROV against Russia lodged on 13 May 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Viktor Vladimirovich Razgovorov , is an apatride who was born in 1956.

On 15 June 2007 the applicant was found guilty in criminal proceedings in Russia and sentenced to six years ’ imprisonment. Shortly before his release upon serving the sentence, on 8 July 2011 the Russian Ministry of Justice declared his presence in Russia undesirable (“the exclusion order”).

On 16 August 2012 the Federal Migration Service asked the authorities of Kazakhstan to confirm that the applicant was a national of that State. On 28 September 2012 a reply was received that the applicant did not have Kazakh nationality.

Pursuant to the exclusion order, on 17 October 2012 the Kemerovo regional branch of the Federal Migration Service issued a deportation order which described the applicant as a national of Kazakhstan.

On 19 October 2012 the Zavodskoy District Court in Kemerovo ordered the applicant ’ s placement in custody pending his deportation. The decision stated that the applicant was a stateless person.

The applicant filed an appeal. He asked to be allowed to leave Russia of his own will, but he needed time to pack his belongings in Novokuznetsk.

On 26 December 2012 the Kemerovo Regional Court rejected the appeal in a summary fashion, noting that his presence in Russia amounted to an “actual threat to Russian public order”.

In the meantime, on 13 November 2012 the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the Federal Migration Service that no State was willing to accept the applicant.

The applicant repeatedly complained to the regional prosecutor about his lengthy stay in detention.

As of the date of introduction of his application, he was still in custody.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 about an excessive length of his detention.

Questions to the parties

Was the applicant ’ s detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant ’ s removal a realistic prospect and did the authorities pursue the proceedings with due diligence (see Kim v. Russia , no. 44260/13 , 17 July 2014)?