CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 janvier 2024

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 29 January 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 27850/23 Genci MESHAU against Italy lodged on 19 July 2023 communicated on 9 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the detention from 23 November 2022 to 22   August 2023 in San Vittore (Milan) prison of the applicant, who suffers from a psychiatric disorder (schizoaffective disorder) as well as substance abuse. On 10 March 2023, the Milan District Court revoked the pretrial detention measure against the applicant and ordered his placement in a specialised structure (Residence for the Execution of Security Measures – REMS) on the basis of the court-ordered psychiatric expertise of 13 January 2023. On 11 May 2023, the Milan District Court decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings ( non luogo a procedere ) against the applicant by reason of insanity and ordered his placement in a REMS for two years. On 28 July 2023, under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, the Court indicated to the respondent Government “to place the applicant with no further delay in a REMS or elsewhere where adequate treatment can be provided for his psychiatric condition”. The applicant was transferred to a REMS on 22 August 2023. The applicant complains under Article 3, Article 5 §§ 1 and 5, and Article   6 § 1 of the Convention of the unlawfulness of his detention, of the conditions of his detention deemed inadequate for his mental health in the absence of specific treatment, of the absence of domestic remedies and of the non ‑ enforcement of the domestic courts’ decisions ordering his placement in a specialised structure. Relying on Article 34 of the Convention, the applicant further complains about the delayed compliance with the measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court.           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, as established by the court-ordered psychiatric expertise of 13 January 2023 and of the decisions issued by the Milan District Court on 10 March and 11   May 2023 ordering his placement in a   REMS, was the applicant’s detention in prison compatible with his state of health? (b) did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment during his detention in prison (see   Rooman v. Belgium   [GC], no.   18052/11, §§146-47, 31   January 2019, and   Strazimiri v. Albania , no.   34602/16, §§ 103-12, 21   January 2020)?   2.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, following the decisions of 10 March and 11   May 2023 ordering the applicant’s placement in a   REMS   and revoking the detention on remand, 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 an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention, as required by Article   5   §   5 of the Convention (see   Sy , cited above, §§ 141-48)?   4.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the delayed enforcement of the decisions issued by the Milan District Court on 10   March and 11 May 2023 (see   Sy , cited above, § 153)?   5.     Having regard to the measures taken in response to the Court’s decision of 28 July 2023 to indicate an interim measure under   Rule 39   of the Rules of Court, was there a hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention?