FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15103/11
Ahmed Yussuf FARAH
against Denmark
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16 October 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Peer Lorenzen,
Julia Laffranque, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 February 2011,
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 applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ahmed Yussuf Farah, is a Somali national who was born in 1951 and lives in Arhus. He is represented before the Court by Ms Helle Holm Thomsen, a lawyer practising in Århus. The Danish Government (“the Government”) is represented by their Agent, Mr Thomas Winkler, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a Muslim and belongs to the Darod clan. He was born in Xuddur and lived there until he was sixteen years old. Then he moved to Mogadishu for some years before moving to Torino in Italy. In the 1980s he returned to Mogadishu. In 1991 the applicant re-entered Italy and on 27 April 1994 he entered Denmark, to join his wife and three children, who had entered the country the year before. On 3 March 1995, by virtue of section 7, subsection 2, of the Aliens Act (Udlændingeloven) the applicant was granted a temporary residence permit until 3 June 1998.
In October 1995 the applicant left Denmark to go back to take care of his sick mother. The applicant has given various divergent explanations as to whether he went to Ethiopia to take care of his mother or whether he also went to Mogadishu.
In 1999, the applicant requested that the Danish Embassy in Addis Ababa restore his Danish residence permit, which had been revoked because he had left the country. He explained that his mother had died and that he needed treatment for diabetes. His request was refused by the Immigration Service (Udlændingeservice) on 29 March 2000.
Having lived for some years in Italy, in the summer of 2007 the applicant re-entered Denmark illegally. His request that the proceedings concerning the refusal to restore his residence permit be reopened was refused by the Immigration Service on 4 March 2009, a decision that was upheld on appeal by the Refugee Appeals Board (Flygtningenævnet) on 10 September 2009.
The following day the applicant requested asylum. In support thereof he referred to the general situation in Somalia and the fact that he had owned a restaurant in Mogadishu from 1985 to 1990, and had a high position there before he left his country in 1994. Thus he would be an obvious target upon return and he feared being killed by Al Shabab. The applicant maintained that he had no family left in Somalia. The applicant’s two sons lived in Denmark. His ex-wife and daughter lived in the United Kingdom. His siblings lived abroad, including in the USA, the UK and Denmark.
The applicant’s request for asylum was refused by the Immigration Service on 18 August 2010 and, on appeal, by the Refugee Appeals Board on 7 January 2011. Both instances found that the general situation in Somalia could not in itself justify the granting of asylum, and that the applicant had failed to substantiate being at a real and personal risk upon return.
On 30 April 2012, following the communication of the present application, the Immigration Service granted the applicant a residence permit in Denmark as a refugee.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained that an implementation of the deportation order to return him to Somalia would be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 1 June 2012 the Government informed the Court of the Immigration Service’s decision of 30 April 2012 and invited the Court to strike out the application. By letter of 29 May 2012, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the matter had been resolved. The Court notes that the applicant has been granted a residence permit in Denmark and that he thus no longer faces a deportation to Somalia. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (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.
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
André WampachKhanlar Hajiyev
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy