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?