CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 avril 2022

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 25 April 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 48470/21 Alexandr ŢURCAN against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 14 September 2021 communicated on 6 April 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the pre-trial detention of the applicant, who is suffering from psychological disorders, in a prison facility in the absence of necessary and adequate medical treatment. In particular, the applicant was remanded in custody over two months despite being mentally ill before a court ordered his transfer to a psychiatric hospital for an assessment of his medical condition. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the circumstances and manner of the treatment by the prison authorities of the applicant’s medical condition amount to inhuman treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention ( Rooman v. Belgium ([GC], no.18052/11, §§ 141-48, 31 January 2019)?   2.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention, in view of his medical condition and the conditions of the execution of the deprivation of liberty ( Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no.   18052/11, §§ 194-214, 31 January 2019)? Was the delay in admitting the applicant to a hospital excessive and contrary to Article 5 §   1 ( Pankiewicz v.   Poland , no. 34151/04, §§ 44-45, 12 February 2008)?