Published on 20 June 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 19358/17 Fabio CRAMESTETER against Italy lodged on 3 March 2017 communicated on 1 June 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the continued placement of the applicant in a psychiatric facility, first in a psychiatric hospital (“ ospedale psichiatrico giudiziario ” or “OPG”) and then in a residence for the execution of security measures (“REMS”), from 28 February 2015 to 26 October 2016, notwithstanding the expiry of time-limits established by national law.

On 26 October 2016 the Florence District Court upheld the applicant’s request for release and recognised that his prolonged placement in a psychiatric facility had been in breach of Article 1, § 1 quater , of Law Decree no. 52 of 31 March 2014 from 28 February 2015 or, at the latest, from 31 March 2015.

Nevertheless, the subsequent attempts by the applicant to obtain compensation were unsuccessful, as national courts held that the remedy provided by Article 314 of the Italian Criminal Code was only applicable to provisional security measures, and not to those applied following a final judgment. The final decision was given by the Court of Cassation on 20 March 2018.

The applicant complains under Articles 5 §§ 1 and 5 of the Convention that he has been unable to obtain compensation for his unlawful detention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant’s detention in a psychiatric facility (first in an OPG and then in a REMS) during the period between 28 February 2015 and 26 October 2016 “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 191, 28 November 2017)? If not, can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, following the decision of the Florence District Court dated 26 October 2016 and the decision by the Court of Cassation dated 20 March 2018 ( Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, § 129, 31 January 2019, and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 180, ECHR 2006 ‑ V)?

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