CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 novembre 2021

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 6 December 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 8436/21 Matteo LAVORGNA against Italy lodged on 29 January 2021 communicated on 17 November 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s complaints, under Article 3 of the Convention, about his confinement in a hospital psychiatric ward ( Servizio psichiatrico di diagnosi e cura ), his alleged ill-treatment in that respect, and the criminal investigation which ensued. In particular, he complains about having been physically restrained to his bed for nine days, coupled with pharmacological restraint for twenty-one days. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Aggerholm v. Denmark , no.   45439/18, §§ 79-85, 15 September 2020)?   The parties are invited to answer this question by addressing the circumstances, manner and duration of the applicant’s physical and pharmacological restraint and the reasons justifying the use of such measures.   The parties are further invited to provide an overview of the case-law of domestic courts concerning the use of physical restraint in psychiatric settings with reference, in particular, to the Court of Cassation’s Mastrogiovanni judgment (Criminal Section V, no. 11620 of 20 June 2018).   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph   131 of Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? In particular:   Were the investigation’s conclusions based on a thorough, objective and impartial analysis of all relevant elements (see Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 234, 30 March 2016)? Did the domestic judicial authorities, and in particular the investigating judge, set out with sufficient clarity the grounds on which the   applicant’s   arguments were dismissed?   Was the domestic investigation conducted in a reasonably expeditious manner (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 121, ECHR 2015, §   121)?   Was the applicant able to participate in the domestic investigation (see Bouyid , cited above, § 122)? INFORMATION SOUGHT The parties are invited to provide statistical information on the use of physical restraint of psychiatric patients, including data on its duration (see, as an example, the data published by the Health Directorate of the Lombardia Region as reported at pp. 26-27 of the court-appointed expert’s report of 20 November 2016), both at the regional and national level.   The Government are invited to submit a copy of the protocol on the use of physical restraint which was in force, at the time of the impugned events, in the Melzo hospital psychiatric ward.