Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

J.A. AND OTHERS v. ITALY

Doc ref: 21329/18 • ECHR ID: 001-204116

Document date: June 26, 2020

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 2

J.A. AND OTHERS v. ITALY

Doc ref: 21329/18 • ECHR ID: 001-204116

Document date: June 26, 2020

Cited paragraphs only

Communicated on 26 June 2020 Published on 20 July 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 21329/18 J.A. and Others against Italy lodged on 26 April 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicants, Tunisian nationals, reached the Italian coast on 16 October 2017 on board of a rudimentary vessel and were transferred to the Hotspot of Lampedusa on the same day. After 10 days of stay, the applicants were transferred to Palermo and eventually deported to Tunisia on 26 October 2017.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1 . Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, during their stay in the Hotspot of Lampedusa, having regard in particular to the material conditions of their 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 . Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, 15 December 2016) during their stay in the Hotspot of Lampedusa?

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

3 . Were the applicants informed, in a language which they understood, of the reasons for their detention, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention?

4 . Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

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

6 . Were the applicants, aliens in the respondent State, expelled collectively, in breach of Article 4 of Protocol no. 4?

7 . Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy to raise before the Italian authorities their complaints under Articles 3 of the Convention and 4 of Protocol no. 4 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2024
Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 398107 • Paragraphs parsed: 43931842 • Citations processed 3409255