CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 novembre 2023

.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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } Published on 18 December 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 15994/20 Stefania ALBERTANI against Italy lodged on 31 March 2020 communicated on 27 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the continued detention in prison of the applicant, who suffers from a complex psychiatric disorder and has been sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment and 3 years’ placement under a security measure. The applicant, initially placed in a psychiatric hospital on the basis of the security measure, subsequently remained in that facility pursuant to a decision, issued on 9   April 2014 by the Mantua judge for the execution of sentences, which found that her state of mental health was incompatible with detention within the meaning of Article 148 of the Italian Criminal Code (“CC”). Following the closing of psychiatric hospitals, in May 2015 the applicant was transferred to San Vittore (Milan) prison, where she remained notwithstanding the above-mentioned decision and subsequent medical reports indicating the incompatibility of her state of mental health with detention in prison. Relying on Articles 3, 5 § 1, 5 § 4 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the unlawfulness of her prolonged detention, the conditions of her detention deemed inadequate for her mental health in the absence of specific treatment and of the lack of domestic remedies. The applicant further argues that the lack of adequate psychiatric facilities and, as a consequence, the continued detention of convicted persons whose detention has been suspended pursuant to Article 148 CC constitutes a systemic problem. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     considering the applicant’s psychiatric disorder, the decision of 9   April 2014, the medical report of 22 May 2015 and subsequent prison medical reports, was the detention in prison compatible with the applicant’s state of health (see Epure v. Romania , no. 73731/17, § 74, 11   May 2021, Bamouhammad v. Belgium , no.   47687/13, §§ 120-121, 17 November 2015)?   (b)     Did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment during her detention in prison ( 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?   3.     Did the applicant have at her disposal a procedure for review of her continued detention as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant have an effective remedy for the purposes of Article o 13 of the Convention to complain of the alleged violation of Article   3?   The Government are invited to provide updated data on the number of persons subject to a decision suspending their detention under Article 148 CC who are currently held in prison facilities.