003-4002771-4660632

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 276 (2012)   28.06.2012   Judgments concerning Germany, Slovenia and Sweden   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five   Chamber judgments1, none of which are final.   The judgments available in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   S. v. Germany (no. 3300/10)   The applicant, S, is a Romanian national who was born in 1961 and is currently detained   in Straubing Prison. In 1996, he was found to have committed a number of offences,   including dangerous assault and sexual assault. As the sentencing court considered that   he was not to be held criminally responsible, it acquitted him and ordered his placement   in a psychiatric hospital. His stay there was terminated by the regional court dealing with   the execution of sentences in 2007. Mr S was subsequently placed in preventive   detention, ordered by the Munich I regional court in 2008. Relying in particular on Article   § 1 (right to liberty and security), he complained of the retrospective order for his   preventive detention, based on a provision inserted into the Criminal Code in 2004, thus   years after he committed the offences on which his preventive detention was based.   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,570 (costs and   expenses)   Schüth v. Germany (no. 1620/03)*   Just satisfaction   The applicant, Mr Bernhard Josef Schüth, is a German national. By a judgment of 23   September 2010 the Court held that the German Labour Court had failed to weigh the   rights of Mr Schüth against those of the employer – the Catholic Church -, in a manner   compatible with the Convention. It held that the German State had failed to provide Mr   Schüth with the necessary protection and that there had been a violation of Article 8   (right to respect for private and family life). Today’s judgment concerned the question of   just satisfaction (Article 41).   Just satisfaction: EUR 40,000 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 7,600   (costs and expenses)   Praznik v. Slovenia (no. 6234/10)   The applicant, Matjaž Praznik, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1970 and lives in   Ljubljana. Relying in particular on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading   treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained about the   conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison between April 2009 and March 2010,   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month   period following a judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber   of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,   judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   notably on account of severe overcrowding, poor sanitary conditions and excessive   restrictions on time spent outside his cell.   Violation of Article 3   Violation of Article 13   Just satisfaction: EUR 7,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 500 (costs and   expenses)   X v. Slovenia (no. 40245/10)   The applicant, Mr. X, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Sp.   Duplek (Slovenia). The case concerned the placement in foster care in September 2003   of his two children, born in 2000 and 2002, following criminal proceedings brought   against him and his former wife for child neglect and abuse. Relying in particular on   Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complained that the welfare   authorities unjustifiably had taken his children into care and imposed restrictions on his   contact with them and that there had been excessive delays in the related proceedings,   leading to his children’s complete alienation from him.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: no claim submitted by the applicant.   A.A. and Others v. Sweden (no. 14499/09)   The applicants, Ms A.A. and her five children, are Yemeni nationals who are currently   living in Sweden pending enforcement of a deportation order to send them back to   Yemen. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading   treatment), the applicants alleged that, if deported to Yemen, they would face a real risk   of being the victims of an honour crime as they had disobeyed their husband/father and   had left their country without his permission. They arrived in Sweden in 2006 and   immediately applied for asylum and residence permits. Before the Migration Board, Ms   A.A. claimed that she had suffered from years of abuse by her husband but that her   main reason for leaving Yemen had been to protect her minor daughters, who were   either being threatened with or had already been forced into an arranged marriage. Their   applications were ultimately rejected in 2009 by the Swedish migration courts, as it was   considered that the applicant family’s problems mainly concerned the personal sphere,   caused among other things by the country's traditions, and had been related to financial   matters, rather than to honour.   No violation of Article 2   No violation of Article 3   The Court also decided to continue its indication to the Swedish Government (made   under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court): it decided that it was desirable in the interests of   the proper conduct of the proceedings not to deport the applicants until this judgment   became final or until further order.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the   www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   3