CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mars 2024

.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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 8 April 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 41645/23 H.D. against Italy lodged on 1 st December 2023 communicated on 18 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an unaccompanied minor migrant, placed for about five months in the adult reception centre and centre for asylum seekers “Sant’Anna C.A.R.A. Regional Hub” of Isola di Capo Rizzuto. On 6 December 2023, the applicant has been transferred to a facility for unaccompanied minors, as requested by the Court in application of Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court. 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 retention at the “Sant’Anna C.A.R.A. Regional Hub” of Isola di Capo Rizzuto (Crotone), due to the conditions of his stay, taking into account also his vulnerable situation of unaccompanied minor (see, among many others, M.S.S. v.   Belgium and   Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, §§   216-223, ECHR 2011; J.A. and Others v.   Italy , no. 21329/18, §§ 58 and 65, 30   March 2023 and, as to conditions of accommodation in respect of minors, Darboe and Camara v.   Italy, no.   5797/17, §§ 167-173, 21 July 2022 and M.A. v.   Italy, no.   70583/17, §§   37-38, 31 August 2023)?   2.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5   §   1 of the Convention during his retention at the “Sant’Anna C.A.R.A. Regional Hub” of Isola di Capo Rizzuto (Crotone), taking into account the modalities of his stay (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no.   16483/12, §§   117 and   132-134, 15 December 2016 and J.A. and Others v. Italy , cited above, §§   79 ‑ 84; see also the report of the Regional Independent Authority for the Rights of Detainee and Individuals Deprived of Liberty of 14   February 2023)? In particular, 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 arrest, 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.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see Darboe and Camara, cited above, §§   193 ‑ 195)?