7.  The applicant was born in 1987 and lived in Syria before he came to Russia in 2015.
8.  The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.
9.  On 23 March 2016 the applicant was arrested for violation of migration rules. On the same day the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk (“the district court”) imposed an administrative fine on the applicant and ordered his administrative removal and detention until his removal.
10.  On 5 April 2016 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya excluded the removal order from the administrative penalty imposed on him by the district court.
11.  On 2 June 2016 the applicant was released.
12.  On 3 June 2016 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya re‑opened the applicant’s case at the request of the migration official and sent it for re-examination to the district court.
13.  On 16 June 2016 the district court reviewed the administrative removal order of 23 March 2016 and confirmed its validity. The applicant was detained on the same day. On 12 September 2016 the judgment of 16 June 2016 was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya. On 7 February 2017 the applicant filed a cassation appeal against these three decisions at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
14.  On 15 July, 7 November and 19 December 2016 and 27 January, 2 March and 10 April 2017 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk allowed an application lodged by the bailiff for the postponement of the enforcement of the order of administrative removal by one month owing to the application of an interim measure by the Court on 17 June 2016. The district court granted the bailiff’s request having relied on Article 31.5 of the Code of Administrative Offences ((“the CAO”), see paragraph 21 below). In these proceedings the applicant’s lawyer also argued that there was a lack of grounds for the applicant’s detention and requested that the enforcement proceedings be terminated and that the applicant be released. However, the district court dismissed her arguments, having concluded that,
“the grounds for the applicant’s detention had already been established by the court in the removal proceedings and the discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings in the circumstances of [the applicant’s] case is not provided for by Article 31.7 of the CAO” (see paragraph 22 below).
All these decisions, except the one of 15 July 2016 (no appeal was brought), were upheld by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya.
15.  On 17 May 2017 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (“the Supreme Court”) examined the cassation appeal complaint of the applicant and reviewed the judgments issued in respect of his removal (see paragraph 13 above). The Supreme Court confirmed the judgments but discontinued the enforcement of administrative penalty in the form of the removal imposed on the applicant on 23 March 2016. The Supreme Court found that the applicant might be exposed to a risk of torture or ill-treatment in Syria in the event of his return there. On 2 June 2017 the applicant was released (after the decision entered into force).
16.  On 11 May 2016 the applicant’s request for refugee status was dismissed. According to the applicant, he did not appeal against this decision because the migration authorities had convinced the applicant that “his application for temporary asylum would be granted”.
17.  On 4 July 2016 the applicant’s request for temporary asylum was dismissed.
18.  On 25 November 2016 a second request lodged by the applicant for temporary asylum was denied by the migration authorities and the applicant did not lodge a complaint against this refusal.
19.  According to the information provided by the applicant’s lawyer on 9 November 2017, while the proceedings before the Court were ongoing, the applicant left Russia of his own volition on 2 August 2017 and had settled in Sweden.