CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 septembre 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 } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s943D4F93 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:21.8pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 14 October 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 37668/23 Enrico GUIDA against Italy lodged on 5 October 2023 communicated on 26 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged inadequate conditions of detention and the medical treatment provided to the applicant. The applicant has limited mobility in his lower limbs due to the consequences of a prior poliomyelitis, and is recognised as 100 % invalid. Previously detained in Naples since 2010, he was transferred to the Piacenza Prison in July 2016. Subsequently, in April 2021, he was transferred to the Pavia Prison, where he is currently detained. Invoking Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that, since 2016, he has been subject to inadequate conditions of detention for a disabled detainee, particularly due to the facilities’ architectural barriers and to the difficulties in accessing showers and outdoor spaces. He further complains that he has been deprived of the required medical treatment.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 1.     With regard to the period of detention spent in the Piacenza Prison, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? 2.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention (see 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 while in prison, such as physiotherapy (see, for example,   Helhal v.   France , no.   10401/12, §§ 57, 58 and   63, 19 February 2015)? (b)     did the applicant’s conditions of detention correspond to the special needs resulting from his disability ( see   Shirkhanyan v.   Armenia , no. 54547/16, § 151, 22 February 2022)?