CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 mars 2007

.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. 100 August-September 2007 Maslov v. Austria (referral) - 1638/03 Judgment 22.3.2007 [Section I] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Ten-year residence prohibition imposed on juvenile delinquent: case referred to the Grand Chamber   The applicant, a Bulgarian national born in 1984, lawfully entered Austria with his parents and two siblings at the age of six. In 1999 he was convicted of burglary, extortion and assault and given an 18‑month prison sentence. His second conviction in 2000 was for a series of burglaries and resulted in a 15‑month sentence. He was released from prison in May 2002 and deported to Bulgaria in December 2003 after a 10-year residence prohibition had been imposed on him. In its Chamber judgment the Court considered that the residence prohibition imposed on the applicant had been lawful under domestic law and had “pursued the legitimate aim” of preventing disorder and crime. However, having regard to the nature of the offences which had been non-violent and a result of juvenile delinquency, the applicant’s good conduct following his release from prison in May 2002 and his lack of ties with his country of origin, a ten-year residence prohibition appeared disproportionate to that “legitimate aim”. The Court therefore held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 8. The case was accepted for referral to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.   © 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