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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Communicated on 26 June 2020 Published on 20 July 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 12344/18 S.B. and Others against Italy lodged on 12 March 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants, Tunisian nationals, are a family of three. The first applicant is the father of the second and third applicants, who were fifteen and fourteen at the time when the case was lodged with the Court. The first applicant arrived in Italy on 15 January 2018. The second and third applicants joined him on 1 st   February 2018. Once transferred to the Hotspot of Lampedusa, the first applicant filed an asylum request and was subsequently heard by the territorial commission of Trapani on 30 January 2018. His request was later suspended due to the examination by the court of Palermo of the veracity of the family link between the applicants. The asylum request filed by the second and third applicants was allegedly not registered. Following a fire that damaged the Hotspot of Lampedusa, on 8   March   2018 the second and third applicants were placed in a centre for minors and thus separated from the first applicant. The latter was suspected of having been involved in the fire accident, was arrested ( fermo ) but later released for lack of evidence. On 9 March 2018 the Youth Court of Palermo decided not to confirm the placement of the second and third applicants in a centre for minors, considering that they could be reunited with their father. On 14 March 2018 the second and third applicants were transferred to the FAMI Alfuras centre for minors of Agrigento. The first applicant was placed in an adults’ facility nearby. On their request, the applicants were reunited on 23   March 2018. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention, during their stay in the Hotspot of Lampedusa, having regard in particular to the material conditions of their 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.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, due to the separation of the first applicant from his children, from 14 March 2018 until 23   March   2018?   3.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5   §   1   of the Convention (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy   [GC], no.   16483/12, 15 December 2016) during their stay in the Hotspot of Lampedusa?   Was the applicants’ detention ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?   4.     Were the applicants informed, in a language which they understood, of the reasons for their detention as required by Article   5 §   2 of the Convention?   5.     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?   6.     Alternatively, should Article 5 considered to be inapplicable to the circumstances of the present case, has there been a restriction on the applicants’ right to liberty of movement , guaranteed by Article   2 §   1 of Protocol no.   4 to the Convention?   7.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy to raise before the Italian authorities their complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?