CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 février 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 } Published on 26   February   2024   FIRST SECTION Application no.   27844/23 Franco   PIANTANIDA against Italy lodged on 18   July 2023 communicated on 9   February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the detention from 9   September 2022 to 17   August 2023 in San Vittore (Milan) prison of the applicant, who suffers from schizophrenia as well as substance abuse. On 3   March 2023, the Busto Arsizio District Court acquitted the applicant by reason of insanity on the basis of a court-ordered psychiatric expertise dated 28   February 2023. The judge revoked the detention on remand and ordered his placement in a specialised structure (Residence for Execution of Security Measures – “REMS”) for three years. While awaiting his transfer to such a facility, the applicant was kept in custody at San Vittore prison. Upon request of the prison authorities, on 3   May 2023 the judge confirmed the applicant’s continued stay in prison until a place became available in a REMS. On 28   July 2023, the Court applied an interim measure in the case under Rule 39   of the Rules of Court, indicating 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 has been transferred to a REMS on 17   August 2023. The applicant complains under Articles   3, 5 §§   1 and 5, and 6   §   1 of the Convention of the unlawfulness of his prolonged 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 thenon-enforcement of the domestic court’s decision ordering his placement in a specialised structure. Relying on Article   34 he further complains about the delayed compliance with the measure indicated by the Court under Rule   39 of the Rules of 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-appointed psychiatric expertise of 28   February 2023, and of the decision issued by the Busto Arsizio District Court on 3   March 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 decision of 3   March 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 implementation of the decision issued by the Busto Arsizio District Court on 3   March 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 to the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application, ensured by Article   34 of the Convention?