CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 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 } .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 17 June 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 6897/24 C.V. against Italy lodged on 11 March 2024 communicated on 28 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant suffers from a borderline personality disorder with tendencies to psychotic behaviour, as well as to substance abuse. The application concerns her detention in the Rebibbia (Rome) prison from 1   July 2023. On 22 September 2023, on the basis of an expert assessment dated 7   August 2023, the Viterbo District Court declared the incompatibility of the applicant’s mental health condition with her detention in prison. It therefore ordered the urgent placement of the applicant in a specialised structure (Residence for Execution of Security Measures – residenza per l’esecuzione delle misure di sicurezza – “REMS”). The domestic court further held that, waiting for a place in a REMS, the applicant would have remained under detention of remand, however, she had to be immediately transferred to a detention facility equipped for the treatment of her psychiatric disorder. On 8 November 2023, the Viterbo District Court acquitted the applicant within the criminal proceedings lodged against her, by reason of insanity, on the basis of a court-ordered psychiatric expertise dated 11   September 2023. The judge revoked the detention on remand and reiterated the order to urgently place the applicant in a REMS for two years. It further insisted on the need to transfer the applicant to a detention facility equipped for the treatment of her psychiatric disorder, while waiting for a place in a REMS. On 19 March 2024, 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 her psychiatric condition”. On the basis of the information provided by the Government on 22   April 2024, the transfer of the applicant to a REMS had been scheduled for the 2   May 2024. The applicant complained under Article 3, Article 5 §§   1 and 5, Article   6   §   1, and Article 13 of the Convention of the unlawfulness of her prolonged detention, of the conditions of her detention, deemed to be inadequate in light of her mental health condition, in the absence of specific treatment, of the absence of domestic remedies and of the non-enforcement of the domestic court’s decision ordering her placement in a specialised structure. Relying on Article   34 she further complained about the failure on the part of the domestic authorities to comply 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 7 August 2023 and 11   September 2023, and of the decisions issued by the Viterbo District Court on 22   September 2023 and 8 November 2023, ordering her placement in a REMS, was the applicant’s detention in prison compatible with her state of health?   (b)     did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment during her 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 22   September 2023 and 8   November 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 decisions issued by the Viterbo District Court on 22   September 2023 and 8 November 2023 (see Sy , cited above, §   153)?   5.     Did the applicant have an effective remedy for the purposes of Article   13 of the Convention, to complain of the alleged violations of Articles   3 and 5   §   1?   6.     Having regard to the measures taken in response to the Court’s decision of 19   March 2024 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?