FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
Application no. 54298/10
by N.H.S. and 32 Others
against Denmark
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 6 January 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Karel Jungwiert, President,
Peer Lorenzen,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Ganna Yudkivska, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 September 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by N.H.S. and 32 others, who are nationals from respectively Syria, Iran, Sudan, Eritrea, Afghanistan Somalia, Gambia and Iran.
On 22 September 2010, the Acting President of the Chamber granted the applicants’ request to apply Rule 39 until further notice and to authorise anonymity (Rule 47 § 3). The Acting President also decided to communicate the application and that in due course the admissibility and merits of the case be considered together (Article 29 § 1).
The applicants were represented before the Court by the Danish Refugee Council. The Danish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Thomas Winkler from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
On 1 October 2010 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the applicants listed as nos. 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 31 and 32 in the application wanted to withdraw their complaints against Denmark because they were not being returned to Greece as stated in the original application, but to respectively Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, France, Malta, Italy and Hungary.
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 no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention as regards the applicants listed as nos. 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 31 and 32 in the application.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list as regards these applicants, and to pursue the examination of the remainder.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases as regards the applicants listed as nos. 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 31 and 32 in the application, and to pursue the remainder.
Claudia WesterdiekKarel Jungwiert
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy