CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 décembre 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 } .s770AAAB9 { margin-top:45pt; 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 23 December 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 23710/24 Francesco PELLE against Italy lodged on 3 August 2024 communicated on 3 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged incompatibility of the applicant’s state of health with his continued detention. On 11 May 2022, the Cagliari Supervisory Judge granted the applicant’s request to be provided with necessary medical care (physiotherapy). In February 2023, the applicant filed a request for postponement of the execution of his sentence or replacement with house arrest, claiming that he was not receiving the necessary medical care. His request was rejected by the Bologna Supervisory Tribunal on 31   July 2023 and confirmed by the Court of Cassation on 8 April 2024. The applicant, relying on Article 3 of the Convention, complains of insufficient access to adequate medical treatment (specifically, physiotherapy) for his diseases, which include paraplegia. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of the applicant’ s rights under Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment during his detention in prison, specifically with regard to physiotherapy (see the principles set out by the Court in Blokhin v.   Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 136-37, 23 March 2016; Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no.   18052/11, §§ 145-48, 31 January 2019; and mutatis mutandis , Helhal v.   France , no. 10401/12, § 57, 19   February 2015)?