CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mai 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 } .s79B8843C { margin-top:60pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB46033ED { margin-top:3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9C156EF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 10 June 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 42909/23 B.Z.C. against Italy lodged on 18 December 2023 communicated on 23 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an unaccompanied minor migrant, placed from 2   October 2023 to 21 December 2023 in the reception centre and centre for asylum seekers (C.A.R.A.) of Restinco (Brindisi) which was destined to host unaccompanied minors. On 21 December 2023, the applicant was transferred to a specific facility for unaccompanied minors, as requested by the Court in application of Rule   39 of the Rules of the Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention during his retention at the reception centre of Restinco (Brindisi), taking into account his vulnerable situation of unaccompanied minor (see, among many others, M.S.S. v. Belgium and   Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, §§ 216-223, ECHR 2011, J.A. and Others v.   Italy , no. 21329/18, §§ 58 and 65, 30 March 2023 and, as to conditions of accommodation in respect of minors, Darboe and Camara v.   Italy , no.   5797/17, §§ 167-173, 21 July 2022, M.A. v. Italy , no. 70583/17, §§ 37 ‑ 38, 31   August 2023)? 2.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention, taking into account the modalities of his stay (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 117 and 132-134, 15   December 2016 and J.A. and Others v. Italy , cited above, §§ 79-84)? In particular, was the applicant’s detention ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?   3.     Was the applicant informed, in a language which he understood, of the reasons for his arrest, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention?   5.     Was the applicant’s retention an interference with his right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Darboe and Camara , cited above, §§ 142-144)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   6.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Darboe and Camara , cited above, §§ 193-195)?