FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 31585/11 Abdi Mahat Salat AHMAD 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 18 May 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:

FACTS

The applicant, Mr Abdi Mahat Salat Ahmad, is a Somali national, who was born in 1980 and lives in Goteborg . He is represented before the Court by Ms Maria Guzman, a lawyer practising in Askim , Sweden .

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 entered Denmark on 7 March 2009 without any identity papers and requested asylum. He had several interviews with the aliens authorities, in which he essentially stated the following in support of his asylum application.

He had never been involved in politics or had any problems with the Government. He had a shop at a market in Mogadishu . On 31 December 2007 his shop and other shops at the market were robbed by Government soldiers. Thereafter, hoping to get his goods back, twice the applicant went to a Government building/local police station. Having seen this, al- Shabaab mistakenly though that the applicant was a spy for the Government. Accordingly, on 1 and 2 January 2008 they threatened him over the telephone. On 4 January 2008 they shot at him on the street. He was hit in the thigh resulting in his hospitalisation for seven months. In the meantime, on 6 January 2008 his parents were killed when their house was hit by a grenade. On the same day al- Shabaab called the applicant (at the hospital) from an anonymous number and said that they would kill him the next time. The applicant left Somalia in the beginning of 2009.

The applicant has been married and divorced twice. He has children and siblings in Somalia , but does not know their whereabouts. After he left Somalia he remained in contact only with a friend there who told him that al- Shabaab was still looking for him.

On 12 November 2009 the Immigration Service ( Udlændingeservice ) refused his application. It noted that the applicant had submitted divergent explanations and that he stayed in Somalia for more that a year after being shot at, during which time he did not encounter any problems with al ‑ Shabaab . In conclusion, it found that the applicant lacked credibility. On 2 July 2010, the decision was upheld on appeal by the Refugee Appeals Board ( Flygtningenævnet ) . 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 16 February 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 16 April 2012 the Government informed the Court of the Immigration Service ’ s decision of 16 February 2012 and invited the Court to strike out the application. By letter of 19 April 2012, the Court invited the applicant to submit comments in this respect by 11 May 2012. The applicant did not reply.

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 (a) and (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 Wampach Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar President