Communicated on 26 June 2020 Published on 20 July 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 26049/18 H.A . against Italy lodged on 23 May 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant, a Tunisian national, reached the Italian coast on 17 October 2017 on board of a rudimentary vessel and was transferred to the Hotspot of Lampedusa on the following day. After approximately 24 days of stay, the applicant left the Hotspot and tried to reach France. Stopped at the boarder by the French police, he was handed over to the Italian authorities and transferred by bus from Ventimiglia to the Hotspot of Taranto. From there, he was transferred to the CPR ( Centro per il rimpatrio ) of Bari. On the 27 November 2017, the applicant was deported to Tunisia.

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 . 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 as well as during his transfer from Ventimiglia to Taranto?

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

3 . During his stay in the Hotspot of Lampedusa and his transfer from Ventimiglia to Taranto, 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?

4 . Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of their detention in the circumstances described above, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

5 . Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Article 3 complaint, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?