CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 avril 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 April 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 35292/23 S.C. against Italy lodged on 25 September 2023 communicated on 11 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the continued detention of the applicant, suffering from psychiatric disorders, in the San Vittore Prison (Milan) from 14 June   2023 to 31   October 2023. The applicant has been detained in prison, notwithstanding the domestic court’s decisions ordering his placement in a specialised structure (Residence for Execution of Security Measures – “REMS”) as precautionary measure. The applicant complains under Articles 3   and   5   §§   1 and   5, as well as Articles   6 and 34 of the Convention of the conditions of his detention deemed inadequate for his mental health in the absence of specific treatment; of the unlawfulness of his detention; of the absence of compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention; of the non-enforcement of the domestic court’s decisions ordering his placement in a specialised structure; and of the delay in enforcing the interim 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 right 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 decisions issued on 16 May 2023 and 28 June 2023 by the judicial authorities in Rome and Milan 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 the detention period (see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§   46-47, 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 and 5? In particular:   (a)     was the applicant’s continued detention period after the decisions ordering his stay in a REMS “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see   Sy , cited above, §§   133-36)?   (b)     having   regard to the applicant’s state of health, did his deprivation of liberty fall within paragraph (e) of Article 5 § 1 and was it justified for the purposes of that provision?   (c)     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)?   3.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the implementation of the orders issued on 16 May 2023 and 28   June   2023 by the judicial authorities in Rome and Milan (see Sy , cited above, §   153)?   4.     Having regard to the measures taken in response to the Court’s decisions 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 (see Sy , cited above, §§   164-66)?