SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no 15035/13 A.H. against Denmark

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 13 October 2015 as a committee composed of:

Ksenija Turković , President, Robert Spano , Jon Fridrik Kjølbro , judges, and Abel Campos , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 February 2013 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

A. The circumstances of the case

1 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

2 . T he applicant is a Somali national. She entered Italy on 5 March 2012 and Denmark on 12 June 2012. On 16 August 2012 the Immigration Service ( Udlændingestyrelsen ) found that the applicant should be returned to Italy under the Dublin Regulation. The applicant appeal ed against the transfer decision to the Ministry of Justice ( Justitsministeriet ), which was subsequently informed that the applicant was pregnant and probably due in June 2013. On 21 February 2013 the Ministry confirmed the transfer decision. The appeal did not have suspensive effect. The Italian authorities had planned to place the applicant at a project in Atina.

3 . On 28 February 2013, 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 until 28 March 2013, and asked the Danish Government whether, in view of the fact that the applicant was pregnant, they could obtain guaranties from the Italian authorities that the applicant would be assisted and given accommodation upon arrival in Italy.

4 . By letter of 20 March 2013 to the Danish Government submitted such a guarantee of 8 March 2013 from the Italian Ministry of Interior .

5 . Accordingly, on 26 March 2013 the acting President of the Second Section decided not to prolong the interim measures indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

6 . On 15 April 2014 the applicant was transferred to Italy.

7 . 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.

8 . 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 may directly affect the applicant ’ s status in Denmark.

9 . By letter of 10 December 2014 the Government informed the Court that in view of the said guarantee of 8 March 2013 and the transfer of the applicant 15 April 2014, they would not take any further steps in the present case.

10 . Subsequently, the applicant was given an opportunity to comment. On 11 June 2015 she stated that she did not wish to pursue her application before the Court.

COMPLAINT

11 . The applicant complained th at her removal to Italy w as in breach of Article 3 of the Convention because of the deficiencies in the reception system for asylum-seekers.

THE LAW

12 . Article 37 of the Convention provides:

“ 1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or

(b) the matter has been resolved; or

(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.

However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.

2. The Court may decide to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course.”

13 . The applicant does not intend to pursue her application before the Court (see Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention ) . Moreover, 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 complaint. Accordingly, it is appropriate to strike the application out of the Court ’ s list of cases.

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 5 November 2015 .

Abel Campos Ksenija Turković Deputy Registrar President