CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2023

.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 } Published on 28 August 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 7003/22 Teodoro CREA against Italy lodged on 28 May 2022 communicated on 10 July 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged lack of adequate medical treatment in prison. The applicant has been detained since 2014 in various prisons and is currently in the Milan Opera prison. He is 83 years of age and suffers from a number of physical diseases, including a hemiplegia and cerebral atrophy as a result of a gunshot wound. He is confined to a wheelchair and needs assistance for all daily tasks. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the incompatibility of his state of health with the continued detention in prison. In particular, he complains of the lack of adequate assistance in his daily activities and of the lack of physiotherapy and rehabilitation treatments. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention (see the principles set out by the Court in Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 141-48, 31 January 2019, and Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 136-37, 23 March 2016)? In particular: (a) did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment during his detention in prison, with particular regard to physiotherapy and rehabilitation treatments (see, for example, Helhal v. France , no. 10401/12, §§ 57, 58 and   63, 19 February 2015)? (b) did the applicant dispose of adequate assistance in his daily activities ( see Potoroc v. Romania , no. 37772/17, §§ 76-78, 2 June 2020, and Helhal , cited above, § 62)?