Published on 25 July 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 56697/21 E. G. against Italy lodged on 23 November 2021 communicated on 4 July 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns detention in juvenile prison of a minor, aged 16, suffering from a conduct disorder with diminished socialisation and showing aggressive and self-harming behaviour. On the basis of a precautionary measure, he was detained from 6 April 2021 to 9 December 2021 in the Milan “Cesare Beccaria” juvenile prison, despite a number of requests by social services and judicial authorities for an available therapeutic community to be identified.

The applicant complains that the delays in his transfer to a therapeutic community, allegedly due to systemic issues concerning the lack of available places and the insufficient coordination among public services, has aggravated his state of mental health, and that he has not received adequate treatment in prison. In the applicant’s submission, his detention in juvenile prison was therefore contrary to Articles 3 and 5 § 1 (d) of the Convention. Furthermore, he complains of the lack of domestic remedies and compensation for his unlawful detention in breach of Articles 5 § 5 and 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In view of the applicant’s young age and his mental state, and taking into account the reports issued by social services on 8 April 2021 and 15 September 2021, the psychological evaluation of 18 June 2021 and the evaluation by prison educators of 23 July 2021, has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) was the applicant’s detention compatible with his state of health and with the principle of the best interest of the child ( Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 137-138, 23 March 2016?

(b) did the applicant receive adequate psychiatric and psychological treatment during his detention in juvenile prison ( Blokhin, cited above; Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§146-147, 31 January 2019 and Strazimiri v. Albania , no. 34602/16, §§ 103-112, 21 January 2020)?

2. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the authorities rely on any permissible ground on which persons may be deprived of their liberty provided in sub‑paragraphs of Article 5 § 1? Could it be said that his detention was in line with the purpose of protecting an individual from arbitrariness ( Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, §§ 68-70, ECHR 2008, and James, Wells and Lee v. the United Kingdom , nos. 25119/09 and 2 others, §§ 191-195, 18 September 2012)?

3. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention ?

4. Is the applicant’s situation indicative of an underlying systemic problem regarding the lack of adequate psychiatric or therapeutic facilities for minors or the lack of coordination among competent services, which could call for an indication of general measures under Article 46 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to provide a copy of the applicant’s prison medical journal ( diario clinico ) along with a typewritten version.