Communicated on 2 July 2019

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 81072/17 Artur VIGANI against Albania lodged on 24 November 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged inadequacy of the medical treatment given to the applicant, who is suffering from multiple sclerosis, and his conditions of detention in view of his state of health.

On 13 July 2009 the Shkoder District Court sentenced the applicant to 25 years ’ imprisonment.

On 29 October 2012, relying on Article 478 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant requested an early release from prison on health grounds. On 4 November 2014 the Tirana District Court rejected the applicant ’ s request. By decisions of 8 May 2015 and 10 November 2016 the Tirana Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld the Tirana District Court ’ s decision. The applicant was provided with a copy of the Supreme Court ’ s decision on 3 May 2017.

On 14 June 2017 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court. On 19 July 2017 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s constitutional appeal as being out of time.

The applicant complains that the inadequate medical treatment and the conditions of detention in view of his state of health were in breach of Articles 2 and Article 3 of the Convention. He also complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings before the Tirana District Court and denial of access to the Constitutional Court.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has the applicant exhausted the domestic remedies in respect of his complaints of inadequate medical treatment under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention?

3. Taking into account the applicant ’ s medical history, have the Government met their obligation to ensure that that applicant ’ s life, health and well-being are being adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance as requi red by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see for example Dzieciak v. Poland , no. 77766/01, § 91, 9 December 2008; Paladi v. Moldova [GC], no. 39806/05, § 71, 10 March 2009 Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, § 143, 31 January 2019)? Were the general conditions and the medical conditions of the applicant ’ s detention compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?

4. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to the applicant ’ s proceedings before the Tirana District Court concerning his release on health grounds (see for example De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, §§ 143-155, 23 February 2017? If so, was the length of those proceedings before the Tirana District Court in breach of the reasonable time as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

5. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right of access to the Court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Constitutional Court ’ s dismissal of his constitutional claim for being lodged out of time (see for example Shkalla v. Albania , no. 26866/05, §§ 48-54, 10 May 2011)?

The Government are requested to provide copies of expert reports prepared at the request of the domestic courts.