CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 novembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s23C33D76 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal }   Communicated on 24 November 2017     FIRST SECTION Application no. 18911/17 A.E. and T.B. against Italy and 2 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern four Sudanese nationals arrested in Ventimiglia and then transferred in the “Hotspot” of Taranto. They were subsequently transferred in Turin in order to be boarded on a flight directed to Sudan. The applicants eventually remained in Italy and were granted refugee status. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment during their arrest, transport and detention, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Before deciding on their expulsion, did the national authorities consider the applicants’ claim that, if returned to Sudan, they would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to inhuman treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Was the applicants’ detention during the period between their arrest in Ventimiglia and the detention order validation hearing “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?   4.     Were the applicants informed promptly, in a language which they understood, of the reasons for their arrest as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention?   5.     Were the applicants brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   6.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   7.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life and their home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   8.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? APPENDIX   Application no. 18911/17 – A.E. and T.B. v. Italy Application no. 18941/17 - A.D . v. Italy Application no. 18959/17 - O.A. v. Italy