CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 juin 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC72D35A3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:18.15pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 7 April 2020 Published on 15 July 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 11791/20 Giacomo Seydou SY against Italy lodged on 4 March 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the continued detention on remand in a common ward of Rebibbia prison (Rome) of a drug addict suffering from a severe psychiatric disorder, notwithstanding domestic courts’ decisions revoking his detention on remand and imposing his placement in a specialized structure, and expert reports underlying the incompatibility of detention with his state of mental health.   The applicant complains of the unlawfulness of his prolonged detention; of the conditions of his detention, inadequate for his mental health in the absence of specific treatment for his psychiatric issues; of the absence of domestic remedies and of non-enforcement of domestic courts’ decisions ordering his placement outside prison.     QUESTIONS 1.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention? In particular: (a) Did the applicant receive an adequate medical treatment during his detention in Rebibbia prison ( Rooman v. Belgium [GC], §§146-147; Strazimiri v. Albania , no. 34602/16, §§ 103-112, 21 January 2020)? (b) Were the applicant’s conditions of detention in conformity with the applicant’s state of health, and with the decision issued by the Tivoli tribunal on 4.2.19 in proceedings n. 1513/2018 R.G., concerning the applicant’s placement in a psychiatric ward or specialized external structure?   2.     Has there been a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s continued detention “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as of the implementation of the judgement issued by the Rome court of appeal on 20.5.19, in proceedings n. 2159/19 R.G.?   4.     Was there an available remedy for the purposes of article 13 of the Convention, for the applicant to complain of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5 § 1?   5.     Did the applicant have an effective compensatory remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?