CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 novembre 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 } .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 } .sE2A46132 { width:22.33pt; display:inline-block } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB2EDE122 { width:158.28pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 25404/12 M.S.M. and Others against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27   November 2012 as a Committee composed of:   András Sajó, President,   Peer Lorenzen,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 April 2012, Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with, Having regard to the comments submitted by the Danish Government and the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS The applicants, a Somali couple and their two small children, currently live in Denmark. They were represented before the Court by Ms   Bettina   Chu, 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. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant spouses entered Italy around November 2008 and were granted a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. They had a daughter there, who is currently approximately two and a half years old. In October 2011, the family entered Denmark and requested asylum. On 24 October and 24 November 2011 the Immigration Service found that the applicants should be returned to Italy via the Dublin Regulation. The applicant wife and the daughter appealed against the decision to the Ministry of Justice, which upheld it on 9 May 2012. In the meantime, on 2 February 2012, the applicant spouses had another child. COMPLAINT The applicants complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about their deportation to Italy. In particular, they referred to the living conditions of asylum seekers and refugees in Italy. THE LAW On 13 June 2012 the Government informed the Court that the Immigration Service had decided to examine the applicants’ claim for asylum in Denmark, thus nullifying the request for transfer of the applicants to Italy. Accordingly, the Government invited the Court to strike out the application. On 27 August 2012 the Government added that, should the applicants be refused asylum in Denmark, they would be given a seven day time limit to leave Denmark so that it would be possible for them to request a new interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court prior to enforcement of a deportation decision. Again the Government invited the Court to strike out the application. By letter dated 21 September 2012, the applicants’ representative informed the Court that in those circumstances she could accept that the Court repeal its Rule 39 decision and strike the application out of the list of cases. The Court notes that the applicants no longer face deportation to Italy and that they no longer intend to pursue their application before the Court. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention, the Court is of the opinion that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. Under these circumstances, the interim measure applied under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court also comes to an end. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Françoise Elens-Passos   András Sajó   Deputy Registrar   President