CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mars 2022

.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 } .sAEA131D0 { margin-top:2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2680E62 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 19 April 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 20860/20 A.S. against Italy lodged on 15 May 2020 communicated on 31 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, a Tunisian national, reached the Italian coast on 7   October 2019 on board of a rudimentary vessel and was transferred to the Hotspot of Lampedusa on the following day. On 25 October 2019, he was transferred to a refugee centre in Agrigento. His asylum request was rejected, and the applicant’s appeal was pending on the date the present application was filed. 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 applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy to complain about his alleged inhuman or degrading treatment, as required by Article   13 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? If so, was the applicant’s detention ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?   4.     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?   5.     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?