CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mars 2021

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } Published on 29 March 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 50023/20 V.T. against Italy lodged on 16 November 2020 communicated on 9 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the continued detention in San Vittore prison (Milan) of an offender acquitted by reason of insanity and suffering from a severe psychiatric disorder – this notwithstanding the domestic courts’ decisions ordering his placement in a specialised 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 deemed 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 TO THE PARTIES 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 prison (see 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 decisions issued by the Brescia tribunal on 19 May and 16 June 2020 in proceedings no.   1202/20 RGNR, concerning the applicant’s placement in a Residence for Execution of Security Measures (“REMS”)?   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.     Did the applicant have at his disposal a procedure for review of his continued detention as required by   Article   5 § 4 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his   detention in alleged contravention of   Article   5 § 1 or §   4, as required by   Article   5 § 5 of the Convention?   5.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as of the implementation of the decisions issued by the Brescia tribunal on 19   May and 16 June 2020 in proceedings no. 1202/20 RGNR?   6.     Was there an available remedy for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention, for the applicant to complain of the alleged violations of Article 3?