CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 juin 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 } Published on 4 July 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 14273/22 Federico BRUNETTI against Italy lodged on 8 March 2022 communicated on 13 June 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the continued detention of the applicant, suffering from a psychiatric disorder and drug addiction, in the Regina Coeli prison (from 1 April 2021 to 28 September 2021) and subsequently in the Sandro Pertini hospital psychiatric service under police surveillance (from 28   September 2021 to 24 February 2022), notwithstanding a domestic court’s decision ordering his provisional placement in a specialised structure (Residence for Execution of Security Measures – “REMS”). The applicant complains, under Articles 3, 5 §§ 1 and 5, 6 §   1 and 13 of the Convention, of the unlawfulness of his prolonged detention, conditions of his detention allegedly inadequate for his mental health in the absence of specific treatment, the absence of domestic remedies and the non-enforcement of the domestic court’s decision ordering his placement in a specialised structure. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention (see Sy v. Italy , no. 11791/20, §§ 76-89, 24 January 2022)? In particular:   (a)     in light of the applicant’s psychiatric disorder and of the decision issued by the Rome investigating judge on 23 June 2021 ordering his placement in a REMS, was the detention in prison from 1 April 2021 to 28   September 2021 and subsequently in the hospital psychiatric ward until 24   February 2022, compatible with the applicant’s state of health?   (b)     Did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment during such periods (see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 146-147, 31 January 2019, and Strazimiri v. Albania , no. 34602/16, §§ 103-112, 21 January 2020)?   2.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under 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 (see Sy v. Italy , cited above, §§ 133-136)?   3.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the implementation of the decision issued by the Rome investigating judge on 23 June 2021 (see Sy v. Italy , cited above, § 153)?   4.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention, as required by Article 5 §   5 of the Convention (see Sy v. Italy , cited above, §§ 141-148)?   5.     Did the applicant have an effective remedy for the purposes of Article   13 of the Convention, to complain of the alleged violations of Articles   3 and 5 § 1?   The Government are invited to submit information on the conditions of detention and on the available treatment in the Sandro Pertini hospital psychiatric service.