Communicated on 13 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 35675/16 A.A . against Russia lodged on 23 June 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a stateless person of Palestinian origin born in Syria .

In June 2015 the applicant arrived in Russia .

In June 2016 a district court found the applicant guilty of breaching the rules governing the stay of foreign nationals in Russia ; it found that the applicant had not applied for asylum in accordance wi th the established procedure, ordered his administrative removal and placed him in detention pending his removal.

The applicant appealed against this judgment , but his appeal was dismissed .

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that in the event of his removal to Syria he would face death and/or torture there.

He also complains under Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention that the domestic authorities did not examine his claims in that regard with the thoroughness required. The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention that his detention pending administrative removal is unlawful and arbitrary and that there is no effective procedure by which he may challenge the continuation of his detention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Will there be a violation of Article 2 or 3 of the Convention in the event of the applicant ’ s removal from Russia to Syria (see L.M. and Others v. Russia , nos. 40081/14, 40088/14 and 40127/14, 15 October 2015)?

2. Did or does the applicant have effective remedies for his complaint, as required under Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, did or does he have access to a remedy which could grant appropriate relief (see Tselovalnik v. Russia , no. 28333/13 , § 64, 8 October 2015 ) and would provide independent and rigorous scrutiny and have suspensive effect (see De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no. 22689/07, § 82, ECHR 2012)?

3. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, what is the legal basis for the applicant ’ s detention? Given that the decision of 18 August 2015 did not refer to the domestic provision on which his detention was based and did not set a time-limit for his detention, was the applicant afforded adequate protection from arbitrariness (see Azimov v. Russia , no. 67474/11, § 171, 18 April 2013, and, mutatis mutandis , Nakhmanovich v. Russia , no. 55669/00, § 71, 2 March 2006)?

4. Have the absence of a periodic review of the applicant ’ s detention and the inability to pursue an application for release resulted in a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Azimov , cited above, §§ 150-55, and Kim v. Russia , no. 44260/13, §§ 39-45, 17 July 2014) ?