CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mai 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 25 May 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 17378/20 Francesco RIELA against Italy lodged on 28 April 2020 communicated on 5 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged incompatibility of the applicant’s state of health with his continued detention in Napoli Secondigliano prison (Naples). Relying on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the absence of adequate medical treatment for his multiple diseases and that the authorities have not protected him from the risk of contracting Covid-19.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 36925/10 and 5 others, § 183, 27 January 2015, and Longin v. Croatia , no. 49268/10, § 41, 6 November 2012)?   2.     Having regard to the applicant’s state of health and the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, have the authorities taken all necessary measures to protect the applicant’s right to life under Article 2 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention? In particular: a)   Did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment during his detention in prison in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention (see the principles set out by the Court in Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no.   47152/06, §§   136-37, 23 March 2016)? b)   With regard to the shortcomings in the medical treatment identified in the independent expert’s opinion of 29 June 2020 and taking into account the decision of the Supervising Tribunal of Naples of 22 July 2020, were the applicant’s conditions of detention compatible with respect for his human dignity (see, mutatis mutandis , Nogin v. Russia , no. 58530/08, § 97, 15   January 2015; Vladimir Vasilyev v. Russia , no. 28370/05, § 69, 10   January 2012; and Slyusarev v. Russia , no. 60333/00, § 43, 20   April 2010)?