Published on 3 August 2026
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 12497/26
Pamamadi SANYANG
against Italy
lodged on 26 March 2026
communicated on 1 July 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the detention of the applicant, who suffers from a persecutory‑type delusional disorder, between 23 October 2025 and 14 April 2026 in San Vittore and Bollate prisons (Milan).
On 16 December 2025, the Milan District Court dismissed the criminal proceedings against the applicant by reason of insanity on the basis of a court‑ordered psychiatric expert opinion. On the same date, it revoked the pre‑trial detention in prison and ordered the applicant’s placement in a specialised structure (Residence for Execution of Security Measures – “REMS”), while authorising his continued detention in prison until a place in a REMS became available. Nevertheless, due to the lack of available places in the REMS, the applicant remained detained in the Bollate prison.
On 2 April 2026, following a request by the applicant, the Court indicated, under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, to the respondent Government “to place the applicant with no further delay in a REMS or elsewhere where adequate treatment can be provided for his psychiatric condition”.
The applicant was transferred to a REMS on 14 April 2026.
The applicant complains under Article 3, Article 5 §§ 1 and 5, Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention of the unlawfulness of his detention, of the conditions of his detention deemed inadequate for his mental health in the absence of specific treatment, of the absence of domestic remedies and of the non‑enforcement of the domestic court’s decision ordering his placement in a specialised structure.
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-ordered psychiatric expert opinion, and of the decision issued by the Milan District Court on 16 December 2025 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 his 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, taking into account the decision of 16 December 2025 of the Milan District Court ordering the applicant’s placement in a REMS and revoking pre-trial detention in prison, was the applicant’s continued detention in prison “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” and justified for the purpose of that provision (see Sy, cited above, §§ 133-36)?
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 delayed enforcement of the decisions issued by the Milan District Court on 16 December 2026 (see Sy, cited above, § 153)?
5. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint about the lawfulness of his continued detention in prison following the issuance of the Milan District Court’s decision of 16 December 2025, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?