CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s30CE1DC3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:13pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sE948756B { height:50.85pt } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8F4CE18E { margin-top:2pt; margin-bottom:2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s42B00776 { height:55.5pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8F4CE18D { margin-top:2pt; margin-bottom:2pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sAF04BED7 { margin-top:2pt; margin-bottom:2pt; font-size:10pt } .s8FE4E8B1 { height:45.1pt } .sC5A04500 { height:34.6pt } .s25F5CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } Communicated on 26 June 2020 Published on 20 July 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 33803/18 H.B. against Italy and 3 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applicants, Tunisian nationals, reached the Italian coast on board of rudimentary vessels and were transferred to different Hotspots (Pozzallo, Trapani and Lampedusa). After several days, the applicants were deported to Tunisia.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5   §   1 of the Convention (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no.   16483/12, 15   December 2016) during their stay in the Hotspots in which they were hosted?   If so, was the applicants’ detention ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?   2.     Were the applicants informed, in a language which they understood, of the reasons for their detention, as required by Article   5 §   2 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention?   4.     Were the applicants, aliens in the respondent State, expelled collectively, in breach of Article   4 of Protocol no.   4?   5.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy to complain about their alleged collective expulsion, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Date of birth Nationality Represented by Date of arrival in Italy Hotspot and arrival date Days of stay in the Hotspot Date of removal to Tunisia 1 33803/18 H.B. v. Italy 13/06/2018 14/10/1997 Tunisian Lucia GENNARI and Loredana LEO 9/12/2017 Pozzallo 9/12/2017 5 14/12/2017 2 52953/18 H.L. v. Italy 02/11/2018 05/10/1996 Tunisian Maria Concetta ROMANO 22/4/2018 Trapani 24/4/2017 11 5/5/2017 3 53788/18 C.L. v. Italy   07/11/2018 26/03/1984 Tunisian Alice ARGENTO 4/5/2018 Lampedusa 4/5/2018 3 7/5/2018 4 53790/18 M.J. v. Italy 07/11/2018 27/06/1981 Tunisian Laura BONDÌ 4/5/2018 Lampedusa 4/5/2018 3 7/5/2018