CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 janvier 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 11 January 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 47523/17 Ibrahima BODIANG against Italy lodged on 5 July 2017 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns a migrant Senegalese national, allegedly unaccompanied minor and victim of human trafficking who underwent a medical examination following which it was established he was adult. He was then let out of the centre where he was first hosted and, after some days, placed in an adults’ centre. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the situation of the applicant amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, when left out from the first reception centre and then during his stay in the Centre of Caritas of the Church of San Romano in Rome, taking into account his alleged vulnerable situation of unaccompanied minor victim of human trafficking?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?