SHOYGO v. UKRAINE – SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE AND QUESTIONS Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision. In their decisions the domestic courts stated that the applicant claimed to be a Russian citizen but lacked any identity documents. Starting on 25 September 2012 the Ukrainian authorities and, following the applicant’s release on 1 November 2012, the applicant himself contacted the Russian Embassy in Ukraine in order to obtain documentation for the applicant as a Russian citizen, on the grounds that he had supposedly acquired Russian citizenship as a Soviet citizen who had permanently resided in Russia as of 6 February 1992 (as per section 13 of the Russian Federation’s Citizenship Act of 1991). The Embassy responded that, based on the information provided by the applicant and available to the Embassy, it was not possible to determine whether the applicant was a Russian citizen. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the period from 1 November 2011 to 1 November 2012? In particular, in so far as his detention may have been effected under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, were the proceedings for his expulsion conducted with due diligence (see, for example, Auad v. Bulgaria, no. 46390/10, §§ 128-35, 11 October 2011, Amie and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58149/08, §§ 74-79, 12 February 2013, and Khamroev and Others v. Ukraine, no. 41651/10, §§ 85 and 90-99, 15 September 2016)? 2. Did the applicant have at his disposal a procedure whereby the lawfulness of his detention, as ordered on 4 November 2011, could be examined by a court and his release be ordered, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular could the applicant take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his continued detention could be examined or was there a procedure for a periodic review of his detention (see, for example, Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, §§ 210-18, 2 October 2012, and R. v. Russia, no. 11916/15, §§ 99-101, 26 January 2016)? 3. Does the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention allegedly in contravention of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Kaboulov v. Ukraine, no. 41015/04, §§ 158 and 159, 19 November 2009, and Korban v. Ukraine, no. 26744/16, § 201, 4 July 2019)? 2