JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES CAFLISCH, KŪRIS AND RESS

We do not share the views of the majority in this case. It is true, on the one hand, that the measure directed at the applicant is a harsh one, as the centre of his family life has been localised in Austria and as ten years is a long period for a residence prohibition. On the other hand, the applicant lived in Austria for a relatively short time (six years). It is not as if he had spent all his life there. He speaks the language of his country of destination and presumably could, from the moment of his expulsion onwards, build a new existence in that country. The presence of an Austrian fiancée and of a son born out of this relationship seem to be subsequent to the relevant facts. All these circumstances relativise a measure which, otherwise, could have been viewed as disproportionate, account being taken, especially, of the applicant's relatively young age.

The decisive element, however, appears to be that, shortly after having been convicted for a second series of offences, in 1995 (judgement, § 11), and a consecutive ten-year residence prohibition ( ibid ., § 1), the applicant committed a new series of burglaries for which he was, again, convicted ( ibid ., § 13). This is evidence of the applicant's callousness and of the contempt in which he held the laws and institutions of his host country, and also of the danger he presented to that country. To us, these elements should override any doubts one might otherwise have had regarding the proportionality of the measure.

Accordingly, we see no violation of Article 8.