The case concerned the detention of the applicant in the hotspot at Contrada Imbriacola on the island of Lampedusa and the poor conditions faced in the Early Reception and Aid Centre (Centro di Soccorso e Prima Accoglienza – CSPA) for 22 days, since the applicant’s arrival there on 30 October 2017 and until 20 November 2017, and also during a second period of 17 days from 10 March 2018 until 27 March 2018. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the European Convention conditions during these periods were unhygienic, there was a lack of sufficient space and services and he had to sleep on mattresses outside the centre.

The case also concerned the applicant’s forced removal to Tunisia. He was allegedly not informed about the possibility to apply for asylum.

The court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on grounds that the conditions in the centre were unhygienic and inadequate (confirmed by the 2016-2017 report of the National Guarantor of the rights of people detained or deprived of their liberty and the 2017 report on Identification and Expulsion Centres in Italy of the Senate of the Republic). The court further added that the 2020 report of the Guarantor confirmed that in the Lampedusa hotspot, in 2019, there were insufficient bathrooms (two bathrooms for 40 people), lacked a place to sleep inside and the rooms were either too hot or too cold, and persons spent several days or weeks at the centre instead of the necessary time to confirm their identity. The court rejected the objections of the Government that the applicant lacked victim status.

The court also found a violation of Article 5 (1)(f), (2) and (4) of the Convention in view of the lack of a clear and accessible legal basis for the detention in the hotspot, which made it impossible to challenge the deprivation of liberty. The court noted that the authorities did not inform the applicant of the legal reasons for his deprivation of liberty or omitted to have provided him with sufficient information or enable him to challenge the grounds for his de facto detention before a court.

The court did not examine the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention and Articles 2 and 4 of Protocol No 4.