CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 9 avril 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s440A90EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s119C1441 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sB706BD6C { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s507990D1 { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CB9BE2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9804041A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7B868B6A { width:9.85pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5348B7C1 { margin-left:4.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sAAD7ECD0 { width:5.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s31FAC864 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s264C04A0 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt } .sF7177B22 { width:0.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA7186A9D { width:36.9pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s7B051ABA { width:164.45pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   FIRST SECTION CASE OF H.D. v. ITALY (Application no. 41645/23)     JUDGMENT Art 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4 • Unlawful detention • Lack of clear and accessible legal basis • Detention not justified under Art   5 §   1 (f) • Applicant not informed of legal reasons for detention • Domestic proceedings not sufficiently expeditious Art 3 (substantive) • Inhuman and degrading treatment • Placement of unaccompanied minor migrant in a separate area of an adult reception centre in inadequate conditions and without the services required in view of his age and vulnerability Art 13 (+ Art 3) • No effective remedies   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 9 April 2026   This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of H.D. v. Italy, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ivana Jelić , President ,   Erik Wennerström,   Raffaele Sabato,   Davor Derenčinović,   Alain Chablais,   Artūrs Kučs,   Anna Adamska-Gallant , judges , and Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   41645/23) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Burkinabe national, Mr   H.D. (“the applicant”), on 1 December 2023; the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Article   3, Article   5   §§   1, 2 and 4 and Article 13 of the Convention to the Italian Government (“the Government”) and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the decision not to disclose the applicant’s name; the decision to indicate an interim measure to the Government under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 17 March 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the placement of the applicant, an unaccompanied minor migrant, in an adult reception centre. It raises issues under Article   3 and Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4 and Article 13 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born on 1 January 2006 and lives in Lamezia Terme (Catanzaro). He was represented by Ms F. Remiddi and Ms L. Vicchio, lawyers practising in Rome. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr L. D’Ascia. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.         APPLICANT’S ARRIVAL IN ITALY AND HIS STAY IN THE SANT’ANNA RECEPTION CENTRE 5 .     On 24 June 2023 the applicant, a Burkinabe national, reached Italy. He was immediately placed in the adult reception centre and centre for asylum seekers, Sant’Anna C.A.R.A. Regional Hub (“the Sant’Anna centre”), in Isola di Capo Rizzuto, Crotone. 6 .     On 31 July 2023 a residence permit in respect of a minor and an internal card from the Sant’Anna centre stating his age were issued to him. 7.     The applicant remained in the Sant’Anna centre for more than five months, until 6 December 2023. He stated that he had been unable to leave the centre during that period.       APPLICANT’S TRANSFER TO A MIGRANT CENTRE FOR MINORS 8 .     On 19 October 2023 the applicant’s representatives lodged an urgent application for interim relief under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the Catanzaro District Court, complaining about his de facto detention. They argued that the Sant’Anna centre was dedicated solely to adults and described the poor material conditions and the situation of overcrowding in the centre. However, they explicitly stated that the application was only intended to complain of the applicant’s de facto detention. In particular, the representatives asked that the applicant’s unlawful detention be acknowledged and that his transfer to an adequate facility for unaccompanied minors be ordered. 9 .     On 1 December 2023 the applicant submitted a request to the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, asking to be transferred to a facility where his reception conditions as an unaccompanied minor could be ensured. He stated that he had already lodged an urgent application for interim relief under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the competent domestic court, but the proceedings had still been pending without any hearing scheduled. 10 .     On 5 December 2023 the Court decided to apply Rule 39 and to indicate to the Government that the applicant should be transferred to a centre for unaccompanied minors where he could receive all the necessary assistance, given his status as an unaccompanied minor. 11 .     On 6 December 2023 the applicant was transferred to a facility for unaccompanied minors, as requested by the Court under Rule 39. 12 .     It is apparent from the documents submitted by the applicant that, on the same day, the applicant’s representatives received notice of the direction scheduling the hearing of the case before the Catanzaro District Court. The hearing was scheduled for 19   December   2023. 13 .     On 13 December 2023 the Catanzaro District Court postponed the hearing until 9 January 2024. 14 .     It further follows from the documents submitted by the applicant that, on 20 December 2023 the applicant’s representatives informed the District Court of their request to the Court under Rule 39 and of the subsequent transfer of the applicant to a centre for unaccompanied minors in Lamezia Terme. They also informed the court that, in the light of the consequent loss of interest in continuing the precautionary proceedings under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, they had not notified the Ministry of the Interior and the Prefecture of Crotone of the scheduled hearing and asked the court to strike the case out of its list. 15 .     With an order of 14 February 2024 the Catanzaro District Court acknowledged the applicant’s transfer to a suitable facility and, considering that the applicant had no further interest in the measure he had originally requested, decided to strike the case out of its list.     APPLICANT’S LIVING CONDITIONS AT THE SANT’ANNA CENTRE    Applicant’s version of the facts      Living conditions as described by the applicant 16.     The applicant remained in the Sant’Anna centre for more than five months, from his arrival on 24 June 2023 until 6 December 2023, when he was transferred as requested by the Court under Rule 39. 17 .     The applicant submitted that the Sant’Anna centre was both a reception centre (in particular within the hotspot area of the centre) and a centre for asylum seekers, intended to host only adults. Unaccompanied minors were, however, held in the centre, in which a situation of overcrowding, lack of separation from and contact with adults, lack of adequate facilities and poor material and hygienic conditions existed. 18 .     The applicant stated that, notwithstanding its 641-person capacity, the centre had accommodated around 830 people, including 200 minors, at the time of his stay. 19.     He further stated that minors were neither provided with dedicated services nor allowed to leave the centre and that he had not been able to meet with his lawyers, as no reply had been provided by the administration to one of his lawyers’ request for access to the centre.      Evidence submitted by the applicant 20 .     The applicant submitted replies provided by the Prefecture of Crotone and the competent police authority ( Questura ) to a request by a non ‑ governmental organisation (NGO) for access to information concerning conditions for unaccompanied minors within the centre. Both authorities confirmed that the centre had not in principle been intended to host unaccompanied minors, however in the event of an emergency situation related to continuous arrivals, unaccompanied minors happened to be temporarily hosted there in a separate area of the centre. 21 .     The applicant provided a report of the National Guarantor of the rights of people detained or deprived of their liberty ( Garante nazionale dei detenuti e delle persone private della liberta personale ) of 14   February   2023. The report described extremely poor material and hygienic conditions of the centre. It further emphasised that the presence of unaccompanied minors was chronic rather than temporary or exceptional, that they were not allowed to leave the centre and that no specific service was provided to them. Despite the fact that unaccompanied minors were in principle housed in designated areas of the centre, according to the report they were “in close contact” with the adults hosted in the facility, since it was possible to gain access from one side to the other side of the centre without restrictions. The report further mentioned that several episodes of harassment against minor women had been reported and that on the day of the National Guarantor’s visit to the centre, the area designated to house minors was used as a “mixed module” where adults were also hosted. 22 .     In addition, the applicant referred to a report from the NGO Save the Children, issued in January 2023, which described the centre as a former military facility, of which it maintained the structural characteristics, with barbed wire fencing and bars on the windows, and it was also characterised by severe overcrowding. He also referred to another report from the Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration ( Associazione Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione – ASGI ), concerning an on-the-spot check of the centre carried out in June 2023, according to which the number of unaccompanied minors at the time was 238.    Government’s version of the facts 23 .     The Government maintained that the living conditions at the Sant’Anna centre had been adequate overall and that specific standards had been set with regard to minors’ reception conditions within the centre.   They submitted an addendum to the contract concerning the management of the Sant’Anna centre, adopted on 20 September 2023, which authorised future increases to staff and services in that regard. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK         RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW    Constitution of Italy 24.     Article 13 of the Italian Constitution reads as follows: “Personal liberty is inviolable. No one may be detained, inspected, or searched, or otherwise subjected to any restriction of personal liberty, except by a reasoned order of a judicial authority and only in such cases and in such manner as provided by law. In exceptional circumstances and under such conditions of necessity and urgency as shall be precisely defined by law, the law-enforcement authorities may take provisional measures that shall be referred within 48 hours to a judicial authority and which, if not validated by the latter in the following 48 hours, shall be deemed withdrawn and ineffective. Any act of physical or mental violence against persons subjected to a restriction of personal liberty shall be punished. The law shall establish the maximum duration of any provisional measure of detention.”    Code of Civil Procedure 25 .     Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that anyone who has cause to fear imminent and irreparable damage to a given right during the time necessary to assert that right in ordinary proceedings may ask the court of competent jurisdiction to order such urgent measures as are deemed, in the light of the circumstances, most appropriate to preserve, on an interim basis, the possibility of enforcing the decision on the merits. 26 .     Under Article 669 sexies , the court dealing with an application for interim relief may decide to give its ruling without hearing the parties beforehand so as not to jeopardise the measure’s enforcement. 27 .     In the event that an urgent measure has been granted under Article   700 (thus anticipating the effects of a decision on the merits), Article   669 octies , as amended by Law no. 80 of 14 May 2005, explicitly excludes the general requirement to set a time-limit – of no longer than 60   days – for the parties to introduce proceedings on the merits. Those measures are therefore not subject to mandatory initiation of the proceedings on the merits (see paragraph   33 below).    Civil Code 28.     Article 2043 of the Civil Code provides: “Any unlawful act which causes damage to another shall oblige the person having committed it to make good such damage.”    Relevant provisions concerning unaccompanied minors 29 .     Under Article 19 of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 25 July 1998 (Consolidated text of provisions concerning immigration regulations and rules on the status of aliens), as in force at the material time, the refusal of entry ( respingimento ) of unaccompanied foreign minors was prohibited. The expulsion ( espulsione ) of minors was also prohibited, except in cases where the minor had followed an expelled parent or guardian, or where expulsion was justified on grounds of public order or national security. 30.     The relevant provisions concerning reception conditions and procedural guarantees for unaccompanied minors have been summarised in Darboe and Camara v. Italy (no. 5797/17, §§ 45-51, 21 July 2022). 31 .     On 6 October 2023 Decree-Law no. 133 of 5 October 2023 (“the Cutro Decree”), subsequently converted into Law no. 176 of 1   December   2023, entered into force, partially amending Article 19 of Legislative Decree no.   142 of 18 August 2015 concerning the accommodation of unaccompanied minors. The amended provision states as follows: “3 bis. In the event of significant and concentrated arrivals of unaccompanied minors ... the prefect ... shall order the activation of temporary reception facilities exclusively dedicated to unaccompanied minors ... In the event of the temporary unavailability of the temporary reception facilities referred to in this paragraph, the prefect shall order the provisional reception of minors aged 16 or older in a dedicated area of the centres and facilities referred to in Articles 9 and 11 [intended for adults] for a period not exceeding 90 days, extendable to a maximum of 60 additional days, and in any event within the limits of the resources allocated for this purpose under the current legislation”.       RELEVANT DOMESTIC CASE-LAW    Case-law concerning Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure      Case-law of the Constitutional Court 32 .     In its recent judgment no. 96 of 9 June 2025 – although in the context of a procedure for validating the administrative detention of foreigners pending their repatriation under Article 14 § 2 of Legislative Decree no.   286 of 1998 – the Constitutional Court, which had been called on to decide on the compatibility of those provisions with Article 13 of the Constitution and also in relation to Article 5 of the Convention, held, inter alia , as follows:   “Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for a subsidiary and atypical preventive remedy ( una tutela cautelare anticipatoria residuale e atipica ), which on one hand is in a relationship of necessary instrumentality with the guarantees of action and defence enshrined in Article 24 of the Constitution and with the effects of the judgment on the merits to which such urgent measures are directed ... and on the other [hand] benefits from the stability ensured by Article 669 octies of the Code of Civil Procedure ... Recourse to the measures under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure is moreover common with regard to ... the fundamental rights of the individual, which cannot be diminished by the administrative power, in respect of which that recourse works as a minimal jurisdictional guarantee required by the Constitution ( strumento minimo della giurisdizione costituzionalmente necessaria ) ... However, it is a form of judicial protection which inevitably suffers from a lack of precise regulation by the legislator of the rights of persons deprived of their liberty within facilities devoted to the execution of administrative detention, as well as from a lack of specific procedural rules for the protection of those rights, comparable to those guaranteed to persons detained on the basis of the Prison Administration Act.”      Case-law of the Court of Cassation 33 .     The Court of Cassation clarified in its case-law that, following the enactment of Law no. 80 of 14 May 2005 – which modified Article   669 octies of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 27 above), providing for an attenuated instrumentality of the interim remedy with regard to the proceedings on the merits, the institution of which was merely optional for the party who had obtained an urgent measure under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure – proceedings under Article 700 were conceived as an autonomous action, capable of definitively satisfying the interests of the party concerned, although it could not be considered a binding final judgment (see, among many authorities, the Court of Cassation’s judgments nos. 23401 of 2015, 10840 of 2016, 28197 of 2020 and, recently, 2480 of 2025).    Court of Cassation’s case-law concerning Article 2043 of the Civil Code 34 .     In its recent order no. 5992 of 6 March 2025, the Court of Cassation, sitting in plenary, recognised the possibility of having recourse to Article   2043 of the Civil Code to obtain compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by unlawful detention. 35 .     In particular, when assessing the suitability of the remedy with regard to a case concerning the ten-day confinement of rescued migrants onboard a ship, to which the docking in Italian ports and, subsequently, the disembarkation of passengers had been refused, the Court of Cassation held that, in the absence of both specific provisions concerning such confinement and individual judicial decisions, the restriction of liberty amounted to an unlawful detention in breach of Article 5 of the Convention and Article 13 of the Italian Constitution and it awarded damages under Article 2043 of the Civil Code. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATIONs OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION 36.     The applicant complained that he had been deprived of his liberty during his stay in the Sant’Anna centre, in the absence of any clear and accessible legal basis, and that it had been impossible to challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty. He relied on Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ... (f)     the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2.     Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. ... 4.     Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. ...”    Admissibility      Whether Article 5 is applicable 37.     The Court notes at the outset that the Government did not dispute that the applicant had been deprived of his liberty. On the contrary, they merely referred to Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, asserting that the applicant had been placed in the Sant’Anna centre to undergo the necessary identification procedure. 38.     The Court observes that the applicability of Article 5 is undisputed between the parties. The Court, for its part, noting in particular that the applicant’s claim that he was not allowed to leave the Sant’Anna centre is supported by evidence (see paragraph 21 above), sees no reason to find otherwise. It thus concludes that Article 5 applies in the present case.      Exhaustion of domestic remedies    The parties’ submissions 39 .     The Government raised the preliminary objection that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies. In particular, they submitted that the applicant merely alleged that he had availed himself of the remedy under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but he did not provide any evidence of the lodging of such application (see paragraph   9 above). The Government also argued that, under Article 669 sexies of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant could have in any event asked the competent court to rule without hearing the parties beforehand (see paragraph   26 above). 40.     In reply to the Government’s objection, the applicant submitted a copy of the urgent application under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure which he had lodged on 19   October 2023 with the Catanzaro District Court (see paragraph 8 above). He further provided evidence that a hearing had been scheduled only on 19 December 2023 and then postponed until 9   January 2024 (see paragraphs 12-13 above). He also asserted that, meanwhile, after obtaining his transfer under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, he had asked the District Court to strike the case out of its list. With an order of 14   February 2024, the Catanzaro District Court had acknowledged the applicant’s transfer to a facility intended to host unaccompanied minors and had struck the case out of its list, considering that the applicant had had no more interest in the measure which he had originally requested (see paragraphs 14-15 above).    The Court’s assessment       General principles 41.     The general principles on exhaustion of domestic remedies are set out in Vučković and Others v. Serbia ((preliminary objection) [GC], nos.   17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014) and reiterated in Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others ((dec.) [GC], no.   39371/20, § 215, 9 April 2024). As for domestic remedies in respect of the lawfulness of deprivation of liberty, the general principles have been indicated in Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) ([GC], no.   14305/17, §§   207-09, 22 December 2020) and Mansouri v. Italy ((dec.) [GC], no.   63386/16, § 84, 29 April 2025). 42 .     In Mansouri (cited above, §§ 85-86 and 89), the Court reiterated that, for a remedy in respect of the lawfulness of an ongoing deprivation of liberty to be effective, it must offer a prospect of release. In other words, a remedy that does not afford a possibility of release cannot be regarded as an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 5 of the Convention while the deprivation of liberty is ongoing. Preventive and compensatory remedies have to be complementary (see Mansouri , cited above, § 85, and Selahattin Demirtaş , cited above, §   207, with further references). The Court also reiterated that the position may be different where the deprivation of liberty has ended. Where an applicant complains that he or she was detained in breach of domestic law ‑ and therefore in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention – and the detention has come to an end before his or her application was lodged, a compensation claim capable of leading to an acknowledgment of the alleged violation and an award of compensation is in principle an effective remedy which needs to be pursued if its effectiveness in practice has been convincingly established (see Mansouri , cited above, § 89, and Selahattin   Demirtaş , cited above, § 208). In the relevant cases the Court carried out a careful examination of whether the unlawfulness or impropriety of a deprivation of liberty had been acknowledged at the domestic level (ibid., §   209, with further references). 43 .     With specific regard to the Italian legal framework, the Court (see Mansouri , cited above, § 95) took into account Resolution   CM/ResDH(2021)424 of 2 December 2021 in which the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in closing the execution procedure pertaining to the Khlaifia and Others   judgment ([GC], no.   16483/12, 15 December 2016), had acknowledged the effectiveness of the compensatory remedy under Article 2043 of the Civil Code – combined with the preventive remedy provided for in Article   700 of the Code of Civil Procedure – in cases involving the detention of aliens. 44 .     In the light of those considerations, the Court held that, on one hand, the compensatory remedy under Article 2043 of the Civil Code enabled domestic courts not only to clarify whether the circumstances of a case amounted to a deprivation of liberty but also to scrutinise the lawfulness of the alleged deprivation of liberty and, if appropriate, compensate the applicant in the event of their finding a violation of Article 5 of the Convention (see Mansouri , cited above, § 100). In Mansouri , given that the deprivation of liberty had already come to an end when he had lodged his application, the Court also considered that the characteristics of such remedy were sufficient to meet the requirements of its case-law for the purposes of Article   35 § 1 of the Convention (ibid., § 101). 45 .     On the other hand, the Court also held that, pending the allegedly unlawful detention, it had been open to the applicant to request his immediate release by means of an urgent application for interim relief under Article   700 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ibid., §§ 102-09).     Application of the above principles in the present case 46 .     The Court notes at the outset that the Government referred to the urgent application for interim relief under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the remedy to be used in order to obtain judicial review of the applicant’s detention (see paragraph 39 above). 47 .     It further notes that, in contrast to Mansouri (cited above, §   101), on the one hand, the applicant’s allegedly unlawful detention was still ongoing when he lodged his application with the Court (see paragraph   9 above) and, on the other hand, the applicant had recourse to the remedy under Article   700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, indicated by the Government, asking the competent court to assess whether the circumstances of his case amounted to an unlawful deprivation of liberty and to order his release. 48.     The Court takes note of the Government’s argument that under Article   669 sexies of the Code of Civil Procedure the applicant could have asked the competent court to rule without hearing the parties beforehand. It also takes into account that the proceedings under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure were subsequently struck out of the list on the request of the applicant (see paragraph 14-15 above). 49 .     In this regard, the Court considers that the applicant cannot be reproached for not requesting the competent court to rule without hearing the parties beforehand. The applicant indeed had recourse to the remedy proposed by the Government but, despite the nature of the proceedings under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure – which is a remedy designed to empower domestic courts to order urgent provisional measures for the preservation of a right that is liable to be impaired or to prevent imminent and irreparable damage (see Mansouri , cited above, §   103) – and despite the relevance of the situation complained of – that of an unaccompanied minor who was de facto deprived of his liberty – it took two months for the domestic court to schedule a hearing, which was further postponed (see paragraphs   12 ‑ 13 above). Pending such delay, the applicant lodged a request for an interim measure under Rule 39, which was granted by the Court and executed by the domestic authorities (see paragraphs 9 ‑ 11 above). 50.     In these circumstances, the Court finds that the applicant’s request to strike the case out of the list (see paragraph 14 above) was consequent to his transfer to a facility for unaccompanied minors, as requested by the Court under Rule 39. In the light of these considerations, the Court concludes that, while the allegedly unlawful detention was ongoing, the applicant used the domestic remedy pointed to by the Government in so far as it could be of use to him. In the absence of any further indication by the Government as to which alternative procedural avenue the applicant should have pursued, the Government’s objection must be dismissed. 51.     Moreover, the Court welcomes the fact that, in the context of a procedure for validating the administrative detention of foreigners pending their repatriation, the Constitutional Court has recently acknowledged that, in the light of the current legal framework – characterised by the lack of precise regulation of the rights of migrants held in administrative detention and the absence of specific procedural rules for the protection of those rights – the urgent interim relief procedure under Article   700 of the Code of Civil Procedure may carry out the function of a minimal jurisdictional guarantee (see paragraph 32 above). 52.     As to the compensatory remedy under Article 2043 of the Civil Code (see paragraphs 33, 34-35 and 44 above), the Court notes that, in contrast to Mansouri (cited above, §   70), in the present case the Government did not raise the question of non-exhaustion in that regard.      Conclusions on admissibility 53.     The Court notes that this part of the application is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.    Merits      Article 5 §§ 1 and 2    The parties’ submissions 54 .     The applicant reiterated that he had been held for more than five months in a facility which he had not been allowed to leave. The facility had barbed wire fencing, bars on the windows and gates which were under constant police supervision. He argued that his deprivation of liberty had had no legal basis under the relevant domestic law, which explicitly forbade detention of unaccompanied minors. He further stated that he had not been provided, either in written form or orally, with an explanation of the reasons for his deprivation of liberty. 55.     The Government referred to Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, arguing that the applicant had been placed in the Sant’Anna centre to undergo the necessary identification procedure and the regularisation of his presence in Italian territory. They further argued that Article 19 of Legislative Decree no.   142 of 2015, as amended by Decree-Law no. 133 of 2023, allowed for the detention of minors in designated areas of adult reception centres. Moreover, they maintained that interpreters and mediators had been present in the centre.    The Court’s assessment       General principles 56.     The general principles concerning deprivation of liberty of migrants have been summarised in Khlaifia and Others (cited above, §§   88 ‑ 92 and   115-116) and J.A. and Others v. Italy (no. 21329/18, §§   79 ‑ 83, 30   March 2023). 57.     With regard to Article 5 § 1 (f), the Court has stated, in J.A. and Others v.   Italy (cited above), as follows: “82. The first limb (‘the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country’), which permits the detention of an asylum ‑ seeker or other immigrant prior to the State granting authorisation to enter, implies that ‘freedom from arbitrariness’ means that such detention must be carried out in good faith, that it must be closely connected to the purpose of preventing unauthorised entry of the person into the country and that the place and conditions of detention should be appropriate. It should be recalled that the measure in question is applicable not to those who have committed criminal offences but to aliens who, often fearing for their lives, have fled from their own country, and that the length of the detention should not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued ... 83. The question as to when the first limb of Article 5 § 1 (f) ceases to apply, because the individual has been granted formal authorisation to enter or stay, is largely dependent on national law (see Suso Musa v. Malta , no. 42337/12, § 97, 23   July 2013); if entry has been refused, any deprivation of liberty under the second limb of Article 5 § 1 (f) will be justified only for as long as deportation or extradition proceedings are in progress. If such proceedings are not prosecuted with due diligence, the detention will cease to be permissible under Article 5 § 1 (f) (see Khlaifia and Others , cited above, §   90).”     Application of the above principles in the present case 58.     In the present case, the Government relied on Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, arguing that the applicant had been placed in the Sant’Anna centre for the purpose of undergoing the identification procedure and the regularisation of his presence in the Italian territory. 59.     However, the Court notes in this regard that the Government did not argue, nor has it been otherwise demonstrated, that the applicant’s entry was refused or that a repatriation order was issued against him. On the contrary, both parties agree that, shortly after his arrival and placement in the Sant’Anna centre, the applicant was identified as a minor and, because of this, granted a residence permit (see paragraph 6 above), whereas no issue has been ever raised as to his age. 60.     The Court further notes that, pursuant to the relevant domestic law, expulsion ( espulsione ) of unaccompanied foreign minors was prohibited (see paragraph   29 above). 61.     In the light of the facts above, the Court finds that the second limb of Article   5 §   1 (f) – which requires that “action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition” – does not apply in the case at hand. 62.     As to the first limb – which permits the detention of an asylum-seeker or other immigrant prior to the State granting authorisation to enter (“the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country”) – the Court notes that the refusal of entry ( respingimento ) of unaccompanied foreign minors was likewise prohibited under domestic law (see paragraph 29 above). In any event, the Court reiterates that, on 31   July   2023, the applicant was granted a residence permit as a minor (see paragraph 6 above), implying a formal authorisation to enter or stay in Italy (see Suso Musa , cited above, § 97). 63.     Therefore, the Court concludes that the first limb of Article 5 §   1   (f) is likewise not applicable in the present case. 64.     As to the Government’s argument that Article   19 of Legislative Decree no. 142 of 2015, as amended by Decree-Law no.   133 of 5   October 2023, allowed for the detention of minors in designated areas of adult reception centres (C.A.R.A.), the Court notes that the applicant was placed in the Sant’Anna centre on 24 June 2023, more than three months before the entry into force of Decree-Law no.   133 of 2023 (see paragraph   5 above). At the material time, the placement of minors in facilities dedicated to adults was expressly forbidden (see Darboe and Camara v.   Italy , no.   5797/17, § 47, 21 July 2022). It further notes that, in any case, the provision referred to, as amended by Decree-Law no. 133 of 2023, does not concern deprivation of liberty, but merely allows – under exceptional circumstances and for limited periods – the accommodation of unaccompanied minors in separate areas of adult reception centres (see paragraph   31 above). 65 .     Accordingly, the Court concludes that the applicant’s detention could not, in any case, be considered justified under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention. 66.     In view of the finding above in respect of the lack of a clear and accessible legal basis for detention, the Court fails to see how the authorities could have informed the applicant of the legal reasons for his deprivation of liberty or provided him with sufficient information in that regard (see Khlaifia and Others , cited above, §§ 117 and 132 et seq., and J.A. and Others v.   Italy , cited above, § 98). 67.     The Court therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article   5 §§   1 and 2 of the Convention.      Article 5 § 4    The parties’ submissions 68.     The applicant further complained that it had been impossible to challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty and have his release ordered. 69.     The Government reiterated that the applicant had had at his disposal the remedy under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, within the framework of which the applicant could have requested that the competent court give its ruling without hearing the parties beforehand.    The Court’s assessment       General principles 70.     The Court reiterates that Article   5 §   4 entitles detained persons to institute proceedings for a review of compliance with the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the “lawfulness”, in Convention terms, of their deprivation of liberty. The notion of “lawfulness” under paragraph   4 of Article   5 has the same meaning as in paragraph   1, such that a detained person is entitled to a review of the “lawfulness” of his detention in the light not only of the requirements of domestic law but also of the Convention, the general principles embodied therein and the aim of the restrictions permitted by Article   5 §   1 (see Khlaifia and Others , cited above, §   128, with further references). 71.     The forms of judicial review satisfying the requirements of Article   5 §   4 may vary from one domain to another, and will depend on the type of deprivation of liberty in issue. It is not the Court’s task to inquire into what would be the most appropriate system in the sphere under examination (ibid., §   129; see also N.   v.   Romania , no.   59152/08, §   185, 28   November 2017). 72.     The existence of the remedy must nevertheless be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see Khlaifia and Others , cited above, §   130). 73.     The Court reiterates that Article   5 §   4 of the Convention, in guaranteeing to detained persons the right to institute proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, also proclaims their right, following the institution of such proceedings, to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention and the ordering of its termination if it proves unlawful (see Denis and Irvine v. Belgium [GC], nos.   62819/17 and   63921/17, §   187, 1 June 2021, with further references). 74.     Proceedings concerning issues of deprivation of liberty require particular expedition, and any exceptions to the requirement of “speedy” review of the lawfulness of a measure of detention call for strict interpretation (see Khlaifia and Others , cited above, §   131). 75.     The question of whether the right to a speedy decision has been respected must be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case and –   as is the case for the “reasonable time” stipulation in Articles   5 §   3 and   6 §   1 of the Convention   – including the complexity of the proceedings, their conduct by the domestic authorities and by the applicant, and what was at stake for the latter (see Ilnseher v.   Germany [GC], nos.   10211/12 and   27505/14, §   252, 4   December 2018, with further references). 76.     In principle, however, since the liberty of the individual is at stake, the State must ensure that the proceedings are conducted as quickly as possible (see Khlaifia and Others , cited above, §   131). 77.     In particular, the Court has clarified that where a decision to detain a person has been taken by non-judicial administrative authorities, rather than a court, the standard of “speediness” of judicial review under Article 5 §   4 comes closer to the standard of “promptness” under Article 5 §   3 (see Shcherbina v. Russia , no. 41970/11, §§ 65-70, 26 June 2014, where a delay of 16   days for judicial review of the applicant’s detention ordered by a public prosecutor for the purposes of extradition was found excessive). 78.     With specific regard to administrative detention of minors in the context of immigration controls, the Court has further emphasi