Communicated on 27 April 2017

FIRST SECTION

Application no 29855/17 A.M . against Italy lodged on 20 April 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a Syrian national who left Syria in 2013 due to the civil war and arrived in Italy in 2017.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 3 that in case of his removal to Syria he would face a risk of death and/or inhuman and degrading treatment .

2. Under Articles 5 § 1 (f), § 5 and 5 and Article 13, h e also complains about the lack of an effective remedy to challenge his continued detention pending expulsion.

QUESTIONS

1. W ould the removal of the applicant to Syria, if carried out, be in breach of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention (see L.M. and Others v. Russia , nos. 40081/14, 40088/14 and 40127/14, 15 October 2015)? Does the current situation in Syria, per se, make any removal to this country incompatible with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention? Before deciding on his removal, did the authorities consider the applicant ’ s claim that he would be exposed to a risk of death and inhuman and degrading treatment if returned to Syria?

2. Did or does the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy for the above complaints, as required under Article 13 of the Convention? In particular:

- did the applicant adduce within the domestic proceedings evidence capable of proving that there are substantial grounds of risk of death and/or ill-treatment in Syria?

- d id the Italian authorities dispel the doubts that could exist about the said risk (see Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 129, ECHR 2008)?

- d id the applicant obtain an “independent and rigorous scrutiny” of this claim by the Italian authorities, including courts?

The respondent Government is invited to refer to specific provisions of domestic law and to provide relevant examples of the case-law of domestic courts in this respect.

3. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did his deprivation of liberty fall within paragraphs (f) of this provision? In particula r, given that the decision of (...) did not set the time-limit of the detention, was the applicant afforded adequate protection from arbitrariness (see Azimov v. Russia , no. 67474/11, § 171-172)?

4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy by which the lawfulness of his detention could be decided speedily by a court as required by article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

5. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?