Communicated on 26 June 2020 Published on 20 July 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 13302/18 M.R. against Italy lodged on 19 March 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant, a Tunisian national, reached the Italian coast on board of a rudimentary vessel on the 15 January 2018. On 30 January 2018, he filed an asylum request and was then transferred to the Hotspot of Lampedusa.

On 23 March 2018, upon a request of the Prefecture of Agrigento, the applicant – who suffers from a mental disorder and attempted suicide several times – was transferred in a medical facility. The applicant states that he filed an asylum request, which allegedly remained unregistered.

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 fact that the applicant ’ s asylum request allegedly remained unregistered and not dealt with entail a risk for him to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in his country of origin, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

3 . Taking into account the applicant ’ s mental disorder and his several attempts of suicide, has his stay in the Hotspot of Lampedusa been in violation of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention?

4 . 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?

Was the applicant ’ s detention ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?

5 . 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?

6 . 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?

7 . Alternatively, should Article 5 considered to be inapplicable to the circumstances of the present case, has there been a restriction on the applicant ’ s right to liberty of movement , guaranteed by Article 2 § 1 of Protocol no. 4 to the Convention?

8 . Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy to raise before the Italian authorities his complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4 and 8 of the Convention and Article 2 § 1 of Protocol no. 4 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?