CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 juin 2020

.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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 26 June 2020 Published on 20 July 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 13755/18 A.B. against Italy lodged on 21 March 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, a Tunisian national, reached the Italian coast on 30   October 2017 on board of a rudimentary vessel and was then transferred to the Hotspot of Lampedusa. After 22 days of stay, the applicant was transferred to Palermo and deported to Tunisia. Few months later, the applicant took again a boat from Tunisia to Italy and landed on the coast of Lampedusa on 10 March 2018. The applicant allegedly expressed his intention to apply for international protection. On 24   March   2018, he was transferred to the migrant centre “Villa Sikania”.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention, during his stay in the Hotspot of Lampedusa, having regard in particular to the material conditions of his detention (see M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no.   30696/09, ECHR 2011 and Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no. 29217/12, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?   2.     Did the alleged difficulties encountered by the applicant in filing his asylum request entail a risk for him to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in his country of origin, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   3.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1   of the Convention (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, 15   December   2016) during his stay in the Hotspot of Lampedusa?   4.     Was the applicant’s detention ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?   5.     Was the applicant informed, in a language which he understood, of the reasons for his detention as required by Article   5 §   2 of the Convention?   6.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article   5   §   4 of the Convention?   7.     Alternatively, should Article 5 considered to be inapplicable to the circumstances of the present case, has there been a restriction on the applicant’s right to liberty of movement , guaranteed by Article   2   §   1 of Protocol no.   4 to the Convention?   8.     Was the applicant, alien in the respondent State, expelled collectively, in breach of Article   4 of Protocol no.   4?   9.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy to raise before the Italian authorities his complaints under Articles 3 of the Convention and 4 of Protocol no. 4 to the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?