PROCEDURE

The case originated in two applications (nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98) against the Republic of Austria lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr Thomas Richard Sylvester, a national of the United States of America, and Ms Carina Maria Sylvester, a national of Austria and of the United States of America (“the applicants”), on 26 May 1997 and 26 February 1998 respectively.

The applicants were represented by Mr S. Moser, a lawyer practising in Graz. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador H. Winkler, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicants alleged that the non-enforcement of the final return order under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction had violated their rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.

The applications were transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).

The applications were allocated to the former Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

By a decision of 24 October 2000 the Court decided to join the applications and to communicate them to the respondent Government.

The applicant and the Government each filed written observations on the admissibility and merits. In addition, third-party comments were received from Mrs Monika Sylvester, the second applicant's mother, Mrs Jan Rewers McMillan, attorney at law, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children, non-governmental organisations concerned with the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which had each been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 61 § 3).

On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed First Section (Rule 52 § 1).

By a decision of 26 September 2002 the Court declared the applications admissible.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicants were born in 1953 and 1994 respectively. The first applicant lives in West Bloomfield (Michigan) and the second applicant lives in Graz.

The first applicant married an Austrian citizen in April 1994. The marriage was concluded in the United States of America, where the couple set up their common residence. On 11 September 1994 their daughter, the second applicant, was born. The family's last common residence was in Michigan. Under the law of the State of Michigan the parents had joint custody over the second applicant.

On 30 October 1995 the first applicant's wife, without obtaining his consent, left the United States with the second applicant and took her to Austria.

On 31 October 1995 the first applicant, relying on the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”), requested the Austrian courts to order the second applicant's return. In these and the subsequent proceedings the first applicant was represented by counsel.

On 3 November 1995 the second applicant's mother filed an application with the Graz District Civil Court (Bezirksgericht für Zivilrechtssachen) for the award of sole custody over the second applicant.

On 20 December 1995 the Graz District Civil Court, after having heard evidence from the first applicant and his wife and the oral statement of an expert in child psychology, Dr. K., ordered that the second applicant be returned to the first applicant at her former place of residence in Michigan.

The court, noting that under Michigan law the first applicant and his wife had joint custody of their daughter, found that the first applicant's wife had wrongfully removed the child within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention. Moreover, it dismissed the mother's claim that the child's return would entail a grave risk of physical or psychological harm within the meaning of Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention. It considered that the second applicant's return could not be hindered by the fact that the mother was her main person of reference and that returning could cause a massive trauma affecting her development. Otherwise, mothers of small children could easily circumvent the aim of the Hague Convention. As to the mother's allegation that the first applicant regularly masturbated in the presence of the child, the court referred to the expert's statement that such conduct would, in view of the child's tender age, not cause immediate harm. The fact that such conduct, if proved, could in the long run be harmful to the child would have to be assessed in the custody proceedings. Finally, it held that the mother could be expected to return with the second applicant to the United States.

On 19 January 1996 the Graz Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen) dismissed an appeal by the second applicant's mother.

The Regional Court confirmed the District Court's assessment as regards the question whether the second applicant's return would entail a grave risk of physical or psychological harm within the meaning of Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention. It noted that the onus of proof was on the person opposing the return, i.e. the second applicant's mother. Further, it noted that the statement of the expert in child psychology had denied that there was any such risk. That statement had been made on the assumption that the mother's allegations were true. However, the Regional Court emphasised that the truth of these allegations had not been proved and that the District Court had had the benefit of hearing the first applicant and, thus, of forming a personal impression of him.

On 27 February 1996 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) dismissed a further appeal by the second applicant's mother.

On 27 February 1996 the first applicant filed an application for enforcement of the return order of 20 December 1995.

Meanwhile, the first applicant had started divorce proceedings before the Oakland Circuit Court (Michigan). By a decision of 16 April 1996, the court pronounced a default judgment of divorce. Further, it awarded the first applicant sole custody of the second applicant and ordered that the second applicant should reside with the first applicant in the event of her return.

On 7 May 1996 the file arrived again at the Graz District Civil Court.

On 8 May 1996 the Graz District Civil Court ordered the enforcement of the return order under section 19 (1) of the Non-Contentious Proceedings Act (Ausserstreitgesetz). It noted that it was necessary to order coercive measures as there were indications that the mother was obstructing the child's return. She had given an interview to a local newspaper according to which she frequently changed her whereabouts and was determined not to let the child be taken away from her.

In the early hours of 10 May 1996, an attempt to enforce the return order was made in accordance with the terms set out in the order of 8 May. A bailiff, assisted by a police officer, a locksmith and a representative of the Youth Welfare Office, appeared at the house where the second applicant and her mother were living. The first applicant was also present. A search carried out in the house, necessitating the use of force against the second applicant's mother and the forceful opening of several doors, remained unsuccessful. On the occasion of the enforcement attempt the Supreme Court's decision of 27 February 1996 and the enforcement order of 8 May 1996 were served on the second applicant's mother.

On 15 May 1996 the second applicant's mother appealed against the decision of 8 May 1996 and again filed an application for the award of sole custody of the second applicant.

On 29 May 1996 the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, issued an arrest warrant against the second applicant's mother on suspicion of international parental kidnapping.

On 18 June 1996 the first applicant made a further application for enforcement of the return order.

By a decision of 25 June 1996 the Graz District Civil Court, at the request of the second applicant's mother, transferred jurisdiction to the Leibnitz District Court, in the judicial district of which the second applicant had purportedly established her residence.

On 29 August 1996 the Graz Regional Civil Court granted an appeal by the first applicant against the transfer of jurisdiction and, on the mother's appeal, quashed the Graz District Civil Court's enforcement order of 8 May 1996 and referred the case back to it.

Referring to section 19 (1) of the Non-Contentious Proceedings Act, the court found that, in the enforcement proceedings, the child's well-being had to be taken into account in so far as a change in the situation had occurred since the issue of the return order and the taking of coercive measures. However, under Article 13 of the Hague Convention, this question was not to be examined by the court of its own motion but only upon an application by the person opposing the return. Following the service of the enforcement order of 8 May 1996 the mother had submitted, in particular, that she was the second applicant's main person of reference. Because of the lapse of time, the second applicant no longer recognised her father when she was shown his picture. By being taken away from her mother the child would suffer irreparable harm. The court therefore ordered the District Court to examine whether the situation had changed since the return order of 20 December 1995. It also ordered the District Court to obtain the opinion of an expert child psychologist on the question whether the child's return would entail a grave risk of physical or psychological harm and whether coercive measures were compatible with the interests of the child's well-being.

Between May and December 1996 numerous letters were exchanged between the United States Department of State and the Austrian Ministry of Justice, acting as their respective States' Central Authorities under the Hague Convention. The United States Department of State repeatedly requested information as to which steps had been taken to locate the second applicant and to enforce the return order of 20 December 1995. The Austrian Ministry of Justice replied that the first applicant was represented by counsel in the Austrian proceedings and that it was up to him to take all necessary steps to obtain the enforcement of the return order. It also pointed out that there were only rather limited possibilities to locate a child who had disappeared after a return order had been made.

On 15 October 1996 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the first applicant and set aside the enforcement order of 8 May 1996. It noted in particular that the notion of the child's well-being was central to the entire proceedings. When ordering coercive measures under section 19 (1) of the Non-Contentious Proceedings Act, the court had to take the interests of the child's well-being into account, despite the fact that the return order was final, if the relevant situation had changed in the meantime. Having regard to the aims of the Hague Convention, a refusal of coercive measures was only justified if the child's return would entail a grave risk of physical or psychological harm for the child within the meaning of Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that particularly difficult problems arose in cases in which the abductor had created the situation in which the return represented a serious danger to the child's well-being. Where the abductor of a small child was the latter's main person of reference and refused to return with the child, a serious threat to the child's well-being might arise. Nevertheless, Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention made clear that the child's well-being took priority over the Convention's general aim of preventing child abduction. Reasons of general deterrence or, in other words, the aim of showing that child abduction was not worthwhile could not justify exposing a child to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm.

In the present case, the mother had claimed that the child, who was now more than two years old, had become alienated from the father. The child's abrupt removal from her main person of reference and her return to the United States would cause her irreparable harm. The Supreme Court emphasised that the particularity of the case lay in the fact that, in the main proceedings, the courts had denied that there was any risk of psychological harm (as a result of the alleged sexual behaviour of the first applicant) exclusively on account of the child's tender age. In these circumstances, it could not be excluded that the child, who was now more than two years old and had been living solely with her mother for more than a year, would suffer grave psychological harm in the event of a return to her father. Thus, the Regional Court had rightly found that the question whether the return order could be enforced by coercive measures needed further examination, including an opinion by an expert in child psychology. It might also prove necessary to assess whether or not the mother's allegations were at all true.

In accordance with the Supreme Court's decision, the case was referred back to the Graz District Civil Court.

On 23 April 1997 the Oakland Circuit Court issued a “safe harbour” order, valid until 21 October 1997, which provided, inter alia, that pending determination of custody in expedited proceedings, the first applicant would not exercise his right to sole custody of the child; the second applicant would live with her mother away from the first applicant, who would undertake to cover their living expenses; and the arrest warrant against the mother would be set aside as soon as she and the second applicant boarded a direct flight to Michigan.

On 29 April 1997 the Graz District Civil Court dismissed an application by the first applicant for enforcement of the return order.

In the continued proceedings, the expert on child psychology, Dr. K., had submitted his opinion on 26 March 1997 and the first applicant had been given an opportunity to comment. On the basis of the expert opinion, the court found that since the second applicant's birth her mother had been her main person of reference. However, the first applicant had had regular contact with her until 30 October 1995, the date of her abduction. Thereafter they had had no contact at all. Since the return order had been made, a year and four months had elapsed and the first applicant had become a complete stranger to the second applicant. Given that a young child needed a stable relationship with the main person of reference at least until the age of six, the second applicant's removal from her main person of reference, namely her mother, would expose her to serious psychological harm. Having regard to the considerable lapse of time since the return order had been made on 20 December 1995, the District Court found that there had been a change in the relevant circumstances, in that the second applicant had lost all contact with the first applicant while her ties with her mother and her maternal grandparents had become ever closer. Consequently, her return would expose her to serious psychological harm.

The court noted the first applicant's statement of 28 April 1997 and his offer within the meaning of the “safe harbour” case-law but considered that this offer did not guarantee that the second applicant's relationship with her main person of reference would be preserved in the long run. As this relationship was indispensable for her well-being, the application for enforcement of the return order had to be dismissed.

On 28 May 1997 the Graz Regional Civil Court dismissed an appeal by the first applicant. It shared the District Court's view that the situation had changed fundamentally since the issuing of the return order. At that time the second applicant had been much younger and, given the short time which had elapsed between her abduction and the issuing of the return order, had not yet lost contact with the first applicant. A return of the second applicant accompanied by her mother could not be envisaged either. Apart from the reasons adduced by the District Court, the mother would face criminal prosecution in the United States and the child would, accordingly, be taken away from her.

On 2, 3 and 4 June 1997 the first applicant was granted a couple of hours of supervised access to the second applicant.

On 9 September 1997 the Supreme Court dismissed a further appeal by the first applicant on the ground that it did not raise any important legal issues.

On 29 December 1997 the second applicant's mother was awarded sole custody of the second applicant by the Graz District Civil Court. It noted that Article 16 of the Hague Convention, which prohibited the State to which the child has been abducted from taking a decision on custody while proceedings for the child's return were pending, no longer applied, as the decision not to enforce the return order had become final. Following appeal proceedings the judgment became final on 31 March 1998.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e1
001-61054_a11_em1
CODE
DIRECT
36812/97
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e2
001-61054_a11_em2
CODE
QUASI
40104/98
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61054_a11_e3
001-61054_a11_em3
ORG
NO_MASK
Republic of Austria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e4
001-61054_a11_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Thomas Richard Sylvester
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61054_a11_e5
001-61054_a11_em5
ORG
QUASI
United States of America
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e6
001-61054_a11_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Carina Maria Sylvester
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e3
001-61054_a11_em7
ORG
NO_MASK
001-61054_a11_em3
Austria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e5
001-61054_a11_em8
ORG
QUASI
United States of America
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e7
001-61054_a11_em9
DATETIME
QUASI
26 May 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e8
001-61054_a11_em10
DATETIME
QUASI
26 February 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e9
001-61054_a11_em11
PERSON
QUASI
Mr S. Moser
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e10
001-61054_a11_em12
LOC
NO_MASK
Graz
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e3
001-61054_a11_em13
ORG
NO_MASK
001-61054_a11_em3
Austrian Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e11
001-61054_a11_em14
PERSON
QUASI
H. Winkler
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e12
001-61054_a11_em15
ORG
NO_MASK
International Law Department
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e13
001-61054_a11_em16
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e14
001-61054_a11_em17
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1980
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61054_a11_e15
001-61054_a11_em18
DATETIME
QUASI
1 November 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e16
001-61054_a11_em19
DATETIME
QUASI
24 October 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e17
001-61054_a11_em20
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs Monika Sylvester
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e18
001-61054_a11_em21
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs Jan Rewers McMillan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e19
001-61054_a11_em22
ORG
NO_MASK
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e20
001-61054_a11_em23
ORG
NO_MASK
International Center for Missing and Exploited Children
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e14
001-61054_a11_em24
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1980
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61054_a11_e21
001-61054_a11_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
1 November 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e22
001-61054_a11_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
26 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e23
001-61054_a11_em27
DATETIME
QUASI
1953
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e24
001-61054_a11_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e25
001-61054_a11_em29
LOC
QUASI
West Bloomfield
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e26
001-61054_a11_em30
LOC
QUASI
Michigan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e10
001-61054_a11_em31
LOC
QUASI
Graz
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e27
001-61054_a11_em32
DEM
NO_MASK
Austrian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e28
001-61054_a11_em33
DATETIME
QUASI
April 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e5
001-61054_a11_em34
ORG
QUASI
United States of America
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e29
001-61054_a11_em35
DATETIME
QUASI
11 September 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e26
001-61054_a11_em36
LOC
QUASI
Michigan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61054_a11_e30
001-61054_a11_em37
ORG
QUASI
State of Michigan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e31
001-61054_a11_em38
DATETIME
QUASI
30 October 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e5
001-61054_a11_em39
ORG
QUASI
001-61054_a11_em5
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e3
001-61054_a11_em40
ORG
NO_MASK
Austria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e32
001-61054_a11_em41
DATETIME
QUASI
31 October 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e14
001-61054_a11_em42
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1980
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e33
001-61054_a11_em43
MISC
NO_MASK
Hague Convention
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e27
001-61054_a11_em44
DEM
NO_MASK
Austrian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e34
001-61054_a11_em45
DATETIME
QUASI
3 November 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e35
001-61054_a11_em46
ORG
QUASI
Graz District Civil Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61054_a11_e36
001-61054_a11_em47
ORG
NO_MASK
Bezirksgericht für Zivilrechtssachen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e37
001-61054_a11_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
20 December 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e35
001-61054_a11_em49
ORG
QUASI
Graz District Civil Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e38
001-61054_a11_em50
PERSON
NO_MASK
Dr. K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e26
001-61054_a11_em51
LOC
QUASI
Michigan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e26
001-61054_a11_em52
LOC
QUASI
Michigan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e5
001-61054_a11_em53
LOC
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e39
001-61054_a11_em54
DATETIME
QUASI
19 January 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e40
001-61054_a11_em55
ORG
QUASI
Graz Regional Civil Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61054_a11_e41
001-61054_a11_em56
ORG
NO_MASK
Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e40
001-61054_a11_em57
ORG
NO_MASK
001-61054_a11_em55
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61054_a11_e42
001-61054_a11_em58
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e40
001-61054_a11_em59
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e42
001-61054_a11_em60
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e43
001-61054_a11_em61
DATETIME
QUASI
27 February 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e44
001-61054_a11_em62
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61054_a11_e44
001-61054_a11_em63
ORG
NO_MASK
001-61054_a11_em62
Oberster Gerichtshof
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e43
001-61054_a11_em64
DATETIME
QUASI
27 February 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e37
001-61054_a11_em65
DATETIME
QUASI
20 December 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e45
001-61054_a11_em66
ORG
QUASI
Oakland Circuit Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e26
001-61054_a11_em67
LOC
QUASI
Michigan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e46
001-61054_a11_em68
DATETIME
QUASI
16 April 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e47
001-61054_a11_em69
DATETIME
QUASI
7 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e35
001-61054_a11_em70
ORG
QUASI
Graz District Civil Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e48
001-61054_a11_em71
DATETIME
QUASI
8 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e35
001-61054_a11_em72
ORG
QUASI
Graz District Civil Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e49
001-61054_a11_em73
DATETIME
NO_MASK
early hours
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e50
001-61054_a11_em74
DATETIME
QUASI
10 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61054_a11_e51
001-61054_a11_em75
DATETIME
NO_MASK
8 May
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e52
001-61054_a11_em76
ORG
NO_MASK
Youth Welfare Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61054_a11_e44
001-61054_a11_em77
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e43
001-61054_a11_em78
DATETIME
QUASI
27 February 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e48
001-61054_a11_em79
DATETIME
QUASI
8 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e53
001-61054_a11_em80
DATETIME
QUASI
15 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e48
001-61054_a11_em81
DATETIME
QUASI
8 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e54
001-61054_a11_em82
DATETIME
QUASI
29 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e55
001-61054_a11_em83
ORG
QUASI
United States District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61054_a11_e56
001-61054_a11_em84
ORG
QUASI
Eastern District of Michigan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e57
001-61054_a11_em85
DATETIME
QUASI
18 June 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e58
001-61054_a11_em86
DATETIME
QUASI
25 June 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e35
001-61054_a11_em87
ORG
QUASI
Graz District Civil Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e59
001-61054_a11_em88
ORG
QUASI
Leibnitz District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e60
001-61054_a11_em89
DATETIME
QUASI
29 August 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e40
001-61054_a11_em90
ORG
QUASI
Graz Regional Civil Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61054_a11_e35
001-61054_a11_em91
ORG
QUASI
Graz District Civil Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e48
001-61054_a11_em92
DATETIME
QUASI
8 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e48
001-61054_a11_em93
DATETIME
QUASI
8 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e42
001-61054_a11_em94
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e37
001-61054_a11_em95
DATETIME
QUASI
20 December 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e42
001-61054_a11_em96
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e61
001-61054_a11_em97
DATETIME
NO_MASK
Between May and December 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e62
001-61054_a11_em98
ORG
QUASI
United States Department of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e63
001-61054_a11_em99
ORG
NO_MASK
Austrian Ministry of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e64
001-61054_a11_em100
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Authorities
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e62
001-61054_a11_em101
ORG
QUASI
United States Department of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e37
001-61054_a11_em102
DATETIME
QUASI
20 December 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e63
001-61054_a11_em103
ORG
NO_MASK
Austrian Ministry of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e27
001-61054_a11_em104
DEM
NO_MASK
Austrian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e65
001-61054_a11_em105
DATETIME
QUASI
15 October 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e44
001-61054_a11_em106
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e48
001-61054_a11_em107
DATETIME
QUASI
8 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e44
001-61054_a11_em108
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61054_a11_e66
001-61054_a11_em109
DEM
QUASI
more than two years old
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e5
001-61054_a11_em110
LOC
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e44
001-61054_a11_em111
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e66
001-61054_a11_em112
DEM
QUASI
more than two years old
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e67
001-61054_a11_em113
DATETIME
NO_MASK
more than a year
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e40
001-61054_a11_em114
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e44
001-61054_a11_em115
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e35
001-61054_a11_em116
ORG
QUASI
Graz District Civil Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e68
001-61054_a11_em117
DATETIME
QUASI
23 April 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e45
001-61054_a11_em118
ORG
QUASI
Oakland Circuit Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e69
001-61054_a11_em119
DATETIME
QUASI
21 October 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e26
001-61054_a11_em120
LOC
QUASI
Michigan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e70
001-61054_a11_em121
DATETIME
QUASI
29 April 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e35
001-61054_a11_em122
ORG
QUASI
Graz District Civil Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e38
001-61054_a11_em123
PERSON
NO_MASK
Dr. K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e71
001-61054_a11_em124
DATETIME
QUASI
26 March 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e31
001-61054_a11_em125
DATETIME
QUASI
30 October 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e72
001-61054_a11_em126
DATETIME
NO_MASK
year and four months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61054_a11_e73
001-61054_a11_em127
DEM
QUASI
age of six
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e37
001-61054_a11_em128
DATETIME
QUASI
20 December 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e42
001-61054_a11_em129
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e74
001-61054_a11_em130
DATETIME
QUASI
28 April 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e75
001-61054_a11_em131
DATETIME
QUASI
28 May 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e40
001-61054_a11_em132
ORG
QUASI
Graz Regional Civil Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e42
001-61054_a11_em133
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e42
001-61054_a11_em134
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61054_a11_e5
001-61054_a11_em135
LOC
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61054_a11_e76
001-61054_a11_em136
DATETIME
QUASI
4 June 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e77
001-61054_a11_em137
DATETIME
NO_MASK
couple of hours
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e78
001-61054_a11_em138
DATETIME
QUASI
9 September 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e44
001-61054_a11_em139
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e79
001-61054_a11_em140
DATETIME
QUASI
29 December 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e35
001-61054_a11_em141
ORG
QUASI
Graz District Civil Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61054_a11_e80
001-61054_a11_em142
DATETIME
QUASI
31 March 1998
Thomas Richard Sylvester
AUT
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Thomas Richard Sylvester