CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 novembre 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 } .s36FD8351 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } Published on 5 December 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 8627/22 M.C. against Italy lodged on 15 February 2022 communicated on 14 November 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the continued detention, in Lecco and Monza prisons, of the 18-year-old applicant, who suffers from a depressive behavioral disorder with borderline intellectual functioning and substance abuse disorder. The applicant was charged with ill-treatment of his family and, as he was considered dangerous, was placed in pre-trial detention in prison from 23   September 2021 to 4 April 2022. On 28 September 2021 the investigating judge ( giudice per le indagini preliminari ) rejected the applicant’s request for the pre-trial detention order to be lifted, as he considered that the applicant was dangerous and did not have a suitable domicile. Given his mental illness and the substance abuse disorder, the applicant’s lawyer and social services filed numerous unsuccessful requests with several therapeutic communities seeking an available facility to host him. On 13 December 2021 the applicant filed a new application, seeking to have the detention replaced with house arrest. The public prosecutor expressed an opinion in favour of his placement in a therapeutic community. On 15 December 2021, the investigating judge considered that, at the current state and in the absence of a suitable alternative to detention in prison, the application should be dismissed. In particular, the judge took note of the applicant’s urgent need to be placed in a therapeutic community but maintained that he could not override the communities’ refusals to host him; he therefore invited both the applicant and the public prosecutor to find a suitable alternative. The applicant requested to be tried under the summary procedure under the condition of a psychiatric evaluation. The medical expert appointed by the preliminary hearings judge ( giudice dell’udienza preliminare ) confirmed the applicant’s double diagnosis of a behavioral disorder combined with substance abuse, found that, when committing the offence, he had acted in a state of diminished responsibility and advised that he be placed in a therapeutic community, where he could undergo treatment and be adequately monitored. On 4 April 2022 the applicant was transferred to a therapeutic community in Bolzano. In a judgment of 22 April 2022, the preliminary hearings judge found the applicant guilty of ill-treatment and assault against his family, committed while his mental capacity was severely impaired, although not entirely. He sentenced the applicant to two years and eight months’ of imprisonment and ordered that he be placed in a therapeutic community as a security measure for one year. Considering that the applicant suffered from a psychiatric illness, the judge ordered that such security measure be executed before he began to serve his prison time. The applicant alleges that during the first period of detention (in the Monza prison) he was exposed to sexual and other acts of violence by other detainees. The applicant complains of the unlawfulness of his detention; of the conditions of his detention which, in his view, were inadequate for his mental health in the absence of specific treatment for his psychiatric issues and resulted – also because of his placement together with the general prison population – in his exposure to ill and degrading treatment by other detainees; of the lack of effective domestic remedies. He invokes Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     was the applicant’s detention compatible with his state of health   (see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 146-148, 31   January 2019; Amirov v. Russia , no. 51857/13, §§ 83-86, 27   November 2014; Murray v.   the   Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, §   106, 26 April 2016; Sy v. Italy , no.   11791/20, §§ 76-81, 24 January 2022)?   (b)     did the applicant receive adequate psychiatric and psychological treatment for his condition during his detention (see Amirov v. Russia , cited above, § 93; Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 137, 23 March 2016; Rooman v. Belgium [GC], cited above, §§ 146-148, and Strazimiri   v. Albania , no. 34602/16, §§ 103-112, 21 January 2020)?   2.     Considering the record of the applicant’s interview with the public prosecutor on 27 November 2021, were operational measures taken to protect him against a risk of ill-treatment by other prisoners (see X and Others v.   Bulgaria [GC], no. 22457/16, §§ 177, 181-183, 2 February 2021) and to adequately secure his health and well-being during detention (see Rodić and   Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 22893/05, § 67, 27 May 2008; D.F. v.   Latvia , no. 11160/07, §§ 83-84, 29 October 2013; Premininy v. Russia , no. 44973/04, § 84, 10 February 2011)?   3.     Given the identified urgency that the applicant be placed in a therapeutic community, 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 Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, §§ 135-141, 4 December 2018; Rooman v. Belgium [GC], cited above, §§ 208-211) ?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal a procedure to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention? Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his continued detention in conformity with Article   5 §   4 of the Convention (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 128, 15 December 2016)?   The Government are invited to provide a copy of the applicant’s prison medical journal ( diario clinico ) along with a typewritten version.