DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE STEINER

I voted against the finding of a violation of A rtic le 8 for the following reasons:

1 . The applicant came to Austria at the age of six and had lived there for twelve years with his parents and siblings when the residence prohibition became final. He speaks German and received his entire schooling in Austria .

2 . As to the nature and gravity of the offences, I note that the applicant was convicted in September 1999 of numerous counts of aggravated burglary committed as a member of a gang, unauthorised use of a vehicle, extortion and bodily assault. A prison term of 18 months of which 13 were suspended on probation was imposed on him and he was ordered to undergo drug therapy. He was convicted a second time in rapid succession, namely in May 2000, of numerous counts of burglary committed as a member of a gang and was sentenced to a prison term of 15 months. As he had failed to undergo drug therapy as ordered, the partial suspension of the first prison term was revoked.

3 . Although the applicant committed these offences as a juvenile, they are far from being of a petty nature. Their considerable number, the lengthy period over which they were committ ed (November 1998 until January 2000), the fact that two of the offences, namely extortion and assault, included threat of violence or use of violence against a person and in particular the rapid recidivism after the first conviction illustrate their serious nature. This is also expressed by the severity of the penalties imposed. In sum, the applicant received unconditional prison terms of two years and nine months.

4 . The applicant argues that he committed the offences at an early age and did not re-offend later. I note that the applicant committed offences until January 2000. It is true that a period of some three years and eleven months elapsed before the applicant ’ s expulsion in December 2003 without the commission of any further offences. However, the applicant spent the major part of this period, namely from February 2000 until May 2002, in prison. He did not benefit from early release. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant ’ s conduct in the period intervening between the commission of the offences and the impugned measure mitigates the fear that he constitutes a danger to public order and security ( a contrario , see Boultif , cited above, § 51).

5 . As regards the solidity of the applicant ’ s social, cultural and family ties in Austria, the authorities noted his lack of integration, in particular that he had elapsed his parent ’ s educational influence, had dropped out of school and had failed to undergo drug the rapy (see paragraph 11 above ).

6 . As to his ties with Bulgaria , the Government assert that the applicant speaks Bulgarian while the latter denies this. I note that the applicant has spent the first six years of his life in Bulgaria . It is therefore not credible that he does not at least have some basic knowledge of Bulgarian. However, given that he never went to school there it appears credible that he does not read or write Cyrillic. Nor does it appear that he has any close relatives there or that he maintained any other contacts with his country of origin, except spending holidays there twice.

7 . As to the proportionality of the impugned measures, I finally note that the authorities imposed a residence ban of limited duration. In this context, I observe that in a number of cases it found a residence prohibition disproportionate on account of its unlimited duration (see , for instance, Ezzouhdi v. France , no. 47160/99, § 35 , 13 February 2001 ; Yilmaz v. Germany , no. 52853/99, § § 48-49 , 17 April 2003 ; and Radovanovic v. Austria , no. 42703/98, § 37 , 22 April 2004 ) while, in other cases, it has considered the fixed duration of a residence prohibition as a factor speaking in favour of its proportionality (see Benhebba , cited above, § 37; Jankov v. Germany (dec.) , no. 35112/92, 13 January 2000 ; and Üner , cited above, § 65).

8 . Having regard to the foregoing considerations and in particular to the gravity and repetition of the applicant ’ s offences and his lack of social ties, I find that by imposing a ten years ’ residence prohibition the authorities duly balanced the interests at stake. Moreover, I observe that although the residence ban was imposed when the applicant was still a minor, the authorities did not proceed to his expulsion before he reached majority (see, a contrario , Jakupovic v. Austria , no. 36757/97, § 29, 6 February 2003 , where we attached weight to the fact that the applicant was only 16 years old when he was expelled). Although, in the present case, his expulsion must have uprooted the applicant, he was already an adult at the time and was moreover not left without any perspective of returning to Austria . I therefore find that the measures complained of were proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

9 . Consequently, there has been no violation of Article 8.

[1] . See, inter alia , Guy S. Goodwin-Gill “The Limits of the Power of Expulsion in Public International Law”, 47 B.Y. (1974-1975), pp. 55 et seq.