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  
5 § 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,  
1
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:  
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  
Press contacts  
[email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
2
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