CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 avril 2013

.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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sD382041 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .sB2EDE122 { width:158.28pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 58271/12 A.H. and Others against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9   April 2013 as a Committee composed of:   András Sajó, President,   Peer Lorenzen,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 September 2012, Having regard to the Government’s letter of 14 January 2013 and the applicants’ reply of 1 February 2013, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms A.H. and her three small children are Somali nationals, who currently live in Denmark. Ms A.H. has twins, who were born in September 2010, and a younger child, who was born in June 2012. The applicants are represented before the Court by Ms Signe Søndergaard, 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 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicants complained under Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention about their return to Malta under the Dublin Regulation . In particular, they referred to the living conditions of asylum seekers and refugees in Malta. On 10 September 2012, the applicants’ request for a Rule 39 indication was granted by the Court as was their request that their identity should not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3). Notice was given to the Government of the applicants’ complaints. By letter of 14 January 2013 to the Court, the Government submitted that: “...The Danish Immigration Service on 14 December 2012 decided to examine the applicants’ application for asylum in Denmark. This implies that the Immigration Service will process the application in Denmark, thus nullifying the request for transfer of the applicant and her three children to Malta in accordance with the Dublin II regulation. Should the Danish Refugee Appeals Board ultimately decide that the applicant does not qualify for refugee or protection status in Denmark the applicant will be given a time limit of 7 days to leave Denmark. It would therefore be possible for the applicant to request the Court for a new interim measure under Rule 39 prior to enforcement of such decision. Against this background, the Danish Government respectfully requests that the Court repeal its Rule 39 decision and strike the case off its list .” On 1 February 2013 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that in these circumstances the applicants did not wish to maintain the case before the Court. Accordingly, they requested that it be struck out of the list of cases. THE LAW In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court considers that it is appropriate to lift the interim measure under Article 39 of the Rules of the Court and to strike the case out of the list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Françoise Elens-Passos   András Sajó Acting Deputy Registrar   President