CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 juin 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 109 June 2008 Maslov v. Austria [GC] - 1638/03 Judgment 23.6.2008 [GC] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Exclusion order made on account of convictions for largely non-violent offences committed when still a minor: violation   Facts : The applicant, a Bulgarian national, had arrived in Austria in 1990 at the age of six and was lawfully resident there with his parents and brother and sister. He obtained an unlimited settlement permit in 1999. In 2001, at the age of 16, he was issued with a ten-year exclusion order by the Federal Police Authority with effect from his eighteenth birthday. The order was made following his convictions by a juvenile court for offences of aggravated burglary, extortion and assault committed at the ages of 14 and 15 and for which he had received prison sentences. After serving his sentences and attaining his majority, the applicant was deported to Bulgaria in December 2003. Law : Article 8 – The imposition and enforcement of the exclusion order against the applicant constituted an interference with his right to respect for his private and family life that was in accordance with the law and pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder or crime. The decisive feature of the case was the young age at which the applicant had committed the offences and, with one exception, their non-violent nature. His convictions had essentially been for acts of juvenile delinquency. Where expulsion measures against a juvenile offender were concerned, the obligation to take the best interests of the child into account included an obligation to facilitate his or her reintegration. Reintegration would not be achieved by severing family or social ties through expulsion, which had to remain a means of last resort in the case of a juvenile offender. Following his release from prison, the applicant had stayed a further 18 months in Austria without reoffending. Little was known about his conduct in prison or the extent to which his living circumstances had stabilised after his release, so the question of his conduct since the commission of the offences carried less weight than the other applicable criteria, in particular the fact that the offences were mostly non-violent and had been committed when the applicant was a minor. The applicant had his main social, cultural, linguistic and family ties in Austria, where all his relatives lived, and no proven ties with his country of origin. The fact that the exclusion order was of limited duration was not decisive. In view of the applicant’s young age, a ten-year exclusion order banned him from living in Austria for almost as much time as he had spent there and for a decisive period of his life. In the circumstances, it was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and thus not necessary in a democratic society. Conclusion : violation (sixteen votes to one). Article 41 – EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes