On the basis of this decision, the director of the Federal Migration Service office for Saint Petersburg and Leningrad Oblast filed a request in court to permit Mskhiladze’s deportation as required by Clause 11 of Article 31 of the Federal Law “On the Legal Situation of Foreign Nationals in the Russian Federation.” The Krasnoselsky District Court of Saint Petersburg granted this request and, in March 2015, placed Mskhiladze in a foreign national temporary detention center. However, it was not possible to deport Mskhiladze to Georgia because there was no document confirming his Georgian citizenship. An official response was received from Georgia stating that Mskhiladze was not a citizen of this country. Mskhiladze was released from the detention center six months later because he could not be deported, but, because he was still stateless, he was soon re-arrested for violating migration rules and again placed in a foreign national detention center. Mskhiladze’s defense attorney made numerous attempts to achieve judicial control over the lawfulness and reasonableness of his extended deprivation of liberty and attain his release, but none of these attempts were successful. Mskhiladze remained in the detention center, even though general jurisdiction courts established that he was a stateless person and that his expulsion could not be executed because no other state, including Georgia, recognized him as its citizen and thus there was no country in the world that he had the right to enter. In the appeal filed with the Constitutional Court, Mskhiladze’s attorney noted that Russian law does not provide for the opportunity to review a ruling on administrative expulsion or to stop its execution, even if expulsion is not possible. This kind of indefinite deprivation of liberty violates fundamental human rights and freedoms; therefore, Article 31.7 (Termination of the Enforcement of a Decision to Impose an Administrative Penalty) and Article 31.9 (Limitation Period for Enforcing a Ruling to Impose an Administrative Penalty) of the RF Code of Administrative Proceedings should be acknowledged as contravening the RF Constitution. In their responses and oral presentations at the Constitutional Court session, representatives of all the government agencies involved refused to acknowledge a violation of the RF Constitution in this case, although they agreed that applicant Mskhiladze’s rights had been violated and that a number of legislative acts needed to be amended. Some responses rejected obvious and numerous facts from judicial practice: for example, a representative of the Federal Bailiffs Service stated that he does not see any barriers to executing the expulsion of stateless persons. He called the application filed by bailiffs on the impossibility of expelling stateless persons the “personal opinion” of certain members of the service. 42