GAHRAMANOV v. AZERBAIJAN DECISION 9 44. Even assuming that the applicant’s version is correct, the Court finds that nothing proves that the applicant’s stay in the SBS room exceeded the time strictly necessary for searching his baggage and complying with the relevant administrative formalities for the clarification of his situation. The Court notes in this connection that in the instant case the SBS officer reasonably believed when he stopped the applicant that there was a need to carry out further checks on the applicant’s identity because – albeit as a result of an administrative error – the applicant’s name appeared under the status “to be stopped” in the database of the SBS. It was established that the SBS detained the applicant only as long as was necessary to carry out a further check and that after the searches and the clarification of his situation he was free to leave the airport. In particular, it has not been shown that the applicant was forced to stay in the SBS room for a period of time exceeding what was strictly necessary to carry out the searches and comply with the relevant administrative formalities (see Foka v. Turkey, no. 28940/95, § 77, 24 June 2008). 45. The Court further notes that, unlike in the case of Nolan and K. v. Russia, where after the border officials had refused the applicant leave to enter Russian territory, the applicant was placed in a room in the transit zone of Sheremetyevo Airport where he spent the night (see Nolan and K. v. Russia, no. 2512/04, §§ 20-26, 12 February 2009), in the present case the applicant was free to leave the airport immediately after his situation had been clarified. 46. The Court thus finds that the applicant’s detention in the SBS room following the border officials’ refusal to allow him to leave the country did not amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 47. It follows that this complaint is inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. B. The remainder of the application 48. Relying on Articles 5, 6, 7 and 13 of the Convention the applicant submitted a number of other complaints related to the domestic proceedings following the incident of 18 July 2006 as well as to the first and second sets of proceedings mentioned above. 49. The Court has examined these complaints as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.