CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 octobre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC769D9E0 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5E698226 { width:12.01pt; display:inline-block } .s3480A186 { width:173.6pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 50990/10 K.A. against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16   October 2012 as a Committee composed of:   Elisabeth Steiner, President,   Peer Lorenzen,   Julia Laffranque, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 September 2010, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The applicant, K.A., is a Sudanese national, who currently lives in Greece. The President of the Section has granted the applicant’s request that his identity should not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3). He was represented before the Court by Ms Mary Lisa Jayaseelan, a legal adviser for the Danish Refugee Council ( Dansk Flygtningehjælp ), an NGO. The Danish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Thomas Winkler, and their Co-agent, Ms Nina Holst-Christensen. FACTS At some unknown time, in vain the applicant applied for asylum in Greece. On 13 April 2010, he entered Denmark and requested asylum. On 9 July 2010, the Immigration Service ( Udlændingeservice ) found that the applicant should be returned to Greece pursuant to the Dublin Regulation. On 3 September 2010 the applicant appealed against the decision to the Ministry for Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs ( Ministeriet for flygtninge, indvandrere og integration ), before which an appeal has no suspensive effect. The applicant was returned to Greece on 9 September 2010. The applicant complained that to return him to Greece was in violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. On 7 October 2011 the Government submitted a friendly settlement declaration in which they stated, inter alia,:   “...Taking into account the ruling of the Court in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC] [no. 30696/09, 21   January 2011], and having regard to the specific circumstances of the present case, the Government proposes to pay the applicant 185,000 Danish Kroner (DKK). This amount is intended to compensate the applicant for any non-pecuniary damage he may have suffered as a result of the decision of the Danish authorities to return him to Greece under the Dublin Regulation. The Government is also prepared to compensate the applicant for necessary and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in relation to the proceedings before the Court, the amount to be determined by the Court...” Having searched the applicant for some time, on 11 May 2012 the applicant’s representative submitted a declaration in which she stated, inter alia, : “...[the applicant] wishes to accept the friendly settlement of DKK 185,000 as a compensation for the non-pecuniary damage he has suffered as a result of his return to Greece by the Danish authorities... ...there are no claims [for costs and expenses]” THE LAW The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It notes that the sum DKK 185,000 is payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government must pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. The Court is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   André Wampach   Elisabeth Steiner   Deputy Registrar   President