SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17913/14
M.A. and K.M.
against Denmark
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8 December 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Ksenija Turković, President,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,
Georges Ravarani, judges,
and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 February 2014, Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the decision to give the case priority under Rule 41,
Having regard to the decision to grant the applicants anonymity,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicants are Stateless Palestinians from Syria, a couple and their three children, born in 2002, 2004 and 2008. They are represented by the Danish Refugee Council (Dansk Flygtningehjælp).
2. The Danish Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Tobias Elling Rehfeld from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. The applicants entered Italy. It is unknown when. They stayed only for a few hours. On 16 November 2013 they entered Denmark. On 16 December 2013 the Immigration Service (Udlændingestyrelsen) found that the applicants should be returned to Italy under the Dublin Regulation. The Italian authorities accepted this and planned to place the applicants at a project called “ARCO”. The applicants’ appeal against the transfer decision was refused by the Ministry of Justice (Justitsministeriet) on 23 January 2014. The appeal did not have suspensive effect. Subsequently, on 30 January, 12 February and 27 February 2014, in vain the applicants requested a reopening of the proceedings.
4. The applicants complained that their removal to Italy would be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention because of alleged deficiencies in the reception system for asylum-seekers.
5. On 3 March 2014, upon the applicants’ request, the acting President of the Second Section decided to apply an interim measure pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and requested the Danish Government to stay the applicants’ expulsion to Italy until further notice.
6. On 4 November 2014 the Court gave its judgment in Tarakhel v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 29217/12, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), which concerned the compatibility of the removal of asylum seekers to Italy with the respondent State’s obligations under Article 3 of the Convention.
7. On 2 December 2014 the Court requested the Government to indicate whether they envisaged taking any steps in response to the Tarakhel v. Switzerland judgment, including any that might directly affect the applicants’ status in Denmark.
8. By letters of 10 December 2014 and 30 January 2015 the Government informed the Court that, in the light of the Tarakhel v. Switzerland judgment, the present case had been remitted to the Immigration Service for a review.
9. In a letter of 19 October 2015 the Government requested that the Court strike the case of its list, because the Danish authorities had decided to examine the applicants’ asylum applications on the merits. Hence the applicants will not be transferred to Italy in accordance with the Dublin‑regulation. Their case will be examined by the Immigration Service in the first instance. If an application for asylum is rejected, the case will automatically be sent to the Refugee Appeals Board (Flygtningenævnet), which is an independent, quasi-judicial body, for review, unless the application is considered to be manifestly ill-founded by both the Immigration Service and the Danish Refugee Council. During the review of the Refugee Appeals Board, the applicants will have a procedural right to stay in Denmark.
10. In a letter of 30 October 2015, the applicants agreed to the striking out of the case.
THE LAW
11. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Done in English and notified in writing on 7 January 2016.
Abel CamposKsenija Turković
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy