CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mai 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC72D35A3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:18.15pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } Published on 30 May 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 6419/15 Adriano AIELLO against Italy lodged on 26 January 2015 communicated on 9 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged incompatibility of the state of health of the applicant, who suffers from several diseases including cardiovascular disease, liver disease and respiratory failures, with his continued detention in Regina Coeli prison (Rome) from 18 December 2013 to 29 July 2014. In particular, relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the absence of adequate medical treatment for his diseases.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     in light of the applicant’s diseases, of the report provided by the prison medical service on 4 July 2014 and of the decision of the Court of Rome dated 19 July 2014, was the applicant’s detention compatible with his state of health (see Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 59, ECHR 2009, and Dorneanu v.   Romania , no. 55089/13, §§ 77-80, 28 November 2017);   (b)     in light of the applicant’s state of health, and taking into consideration the decision issued by the Court of Cassation on 23 October 2014, was the Court of Rome’s refusal to appoint an independent medical expert until 7 July 2014 in compliance with the State’s positive obligations under Article 3 (see Wenner v. Germany , no. 62303/13, § 57, 1 September 2016; Golubar v.   Croatia , no. 21951/15, § 43, 2 May 2017; and Farbtuhs v. Latvia , no.   4672/02, § 56, 2 December 2004)? In particular, did the national courts assess all relevant facts concerning the applicant’s request for replacement of detention in prison with less restrictive measures based on health grounds?   (c)     did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment during his detention in prison (see the principles set out by the Court in Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 136-137, 23 March 2016)?