CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 23 août 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s299839C6 { width:212.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 53482/10 by J.K. and 63 Others against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23   August 2011 as a Chamber composed of:   Nina Vajić, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Peer Lorenzen,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   George Nicolaou,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 September 2010, 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 decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are of various nationalities. They applied for asylum first in Greece and thereafter in Denmark, where they are currently living. They are represented before the Court by 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 that it would be in violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention to return them to Greece under the Dublin Regulation. On 17 September 2010, 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 2 February 2011 to the Court, the Government submitted that in the light of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, 21   January   2011:   “...Denmark has decided until further notice to process the applications for asylum from persons who otherwise would have been transferred from Denmark to Greece. This entails, inter alia , that the applicants in the above mentioned applications concerning Denmark will now get their applications for asylum proceeded in Denmark. Against this backdrop, the Danish Government respectfully invites the Court to repeal its Rule 39 decisions in the above-mentioned applications concerning Denmark”. On 22 March 2011 the Court sent a letter to the applicants’ representative with the following content: “... You are requested to inform the Court ... whether, in the light of the Government’s information [in the enclosed letter of 2   February 2011], your clients wish to maintain their application. If they indeed wish to do so, you should elaborate on why it would still be justified for the Court to continue the examination of the application given that it now appears that the applicants will not be transferred to Greece and that your applications for asylum will be examined by the Danish authorities...” On 25 May 2011 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the applicants did not wish to maintain their applications. 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 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.   Søren Nielsen   Nina Vajić   Registrar   President