Communicated on 5 October 2016
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 34602/16
Arben STRAZIMIRI
against Albania
lodged on 11 June 2016
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the inadequacy of the medical treatment of the applicant, who is suffering from mental illness (paranoid schizophrenia), and conditions of his detention in view of his state of health. The applicant was detained from 2009 to 2011 in Kruja Prison and since 2011 to date has been held in the Special Health Institution for Prisoners (“SHIP”), despite a court decision dated 25 March 2009 ordering the authorities to provide obligatory treatment in a medical institution (mjekim i detyruar në një institucion mjekësor).
The applicant further alleges that his confinement in prison was not ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” and was not “lawful”, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. He also complains of a breach of Article 5 § 4 and 5, alleging that he was not given the possibility of having the lawfulness of his detention reviewed “speedily” by a court, nor did he obtain compensation in respect of this breach. Finally, under Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention, he complains about the lack of an effective remedy and about being discriminated against on the ground of his mental illness.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) Did the applicant receive an adequate medical treatment during his detention in Kruja prison and the Special Health Institution for Prisoners?
(b) Were the applicant’s conditions of detention in conformity with the applicant’s state of health, the court’s decision of 25 March 2009, the subsequent court decisions ordering his obligatory treatment in a medical institution, and Law no. 44/2012 of 8 May 2012 “On mental health”?
3. Has there been a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s continued detention “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Pankiewicz v. Poland, no. 34151/04, 12 February 2008, and Morsink v. the Netherlands, no. 48865/99, 11 May 2004?)
4. Did the length of the proceedings relating to the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention comply with the requirement of “speediness” laid down in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
5. Did the applicant have an effective compensatory remedy in respect of his complaints under Article 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Knebl v. the Czech Republic, no. 20157/05, 28 October 2010)?
6. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3 and 5 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy