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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Communicated on 26 June 2020 Published on 20 July 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 13110/18 M.A. against Italy lodged on 16 March 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, a Tunisian national, reached the Italian coast on 15   January 2018 on board of a rudimentary vessel. He was then transferred to the Hotspot of Lampedusa where he filed an asylum request. Following its rejection, the applicant filed an appeal with the court of Palermo. On 20   March   2018 the applicant was transferred to a reception facility in Turin.     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.     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?   Was the applicant’s detention ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?   3.     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?   4.     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?   5.     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?   6.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy to raise before the Italian authorities his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?