Published on 28 August 2023
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 49769/22
G.R. against Italy
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 10 July 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The cases concern the continued detention of the applicants, suffering from psychiatric disorders, for several months in the San Vittore Prison (Milan). The applicants have been detained in prison, notwithstanding the domestic court’s decisions ordering their placement in a specialised structure (Residence for Execution of Security Measures – “REMS”) either as precautionary measures and/or following their acquittal by reason of insanity.
The applicants complain under Articles 3 and 5 §§ 1 and 5, as well as Articles 6 and 34 of the Convention of the unlawfulness of their prolonged detention; of the conditions of their detention deemed inadequate for their mental health in the absence of specific treatment; of the non-enforcement of the domestic court’s decisions ordering their 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 applicants’ 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 applicants’ psychiatric disorders and of the decisions issued by the Milan District Court ordering their placement in a REMS, was the applicants’ detention in prison compatible with their state of health?
(b) did the applicants receive adequate medical treatment during such period (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 applicants’ rights under Article 5 §§ 1 and 5? In particular:
(a) were the applicants’ continued detention periods after the decisions ordering their 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 applicants’ state of health, did their continued deprivation of liberty fall within paragraph (e) of Article 5 § 1?
(c) did the applicants have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for their 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 decisions issued by the Milan District Court (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 applicants’ right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention (see Sy, cited above, §§ 164-66)?
APPENDIX
List of applications concerned:
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Case name
Applicant’s name
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
49769/22
24/10/2022
G.R. v. Italy
G.R.
1975
Milan
Australian
Antonella MASCIA
Antonella CALCATERRA
2.
50111/22
26/10/2022
Z.B. v. Italy
Z.B.
1998
Milan
Algerian
Antonella MASCIA
Antonella CALCATERRA
3.
50764/22
03/11/2022
T.L. v. Italy
T.L.
1990
Milan
Moroccan
Antonella MASCIA
Antonella CALCATERRA