PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 68919/10) against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a German national, Mr J. Peter (“the applicant”), on 24 November 2010.

The applicant was represented by Mr C. Lenz, a lawyer practising in Stuttgart. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr H.-J. Behrens, Ministerialrat, of the Federal Ministry of Justice.

On 3 June 2013 the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court and the lack of an effective remedy was communicated to the Government.

On the same day the President of the Section sitting in a single-judge formation declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.

THE FACTS

The applicant is a German national who was born in 1948 and lives in Ulrichstein.

A. The circumstances of the case

1. Background to the case

On 1 August 2001 the Civil Partnership Act (Gesetz über die eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft) entered into force and introduced civil unions for same-sex couples.

On 5 October 2001 the applicant entered into a civil partnership with Mr Peter, né V.

On 22 June 2002 Mr Peter, né V., died.

2. Proceedings at issue

In September 2002 the applicant applied for a survivor’s pension to the German Pension Fund (Bundesversicherungsanstalt für Angestellte), a public-law corporation.

On 19 November 2002 the German Pension Fund rejected the applicant’s claim and on 28 February 2003 it dismissed the administrative appeal lodged by the applicant against that decision.

On 19 March 2003 the applicant applied to the Fulda Social Court for judicial review. He argued that the term “widow or widower” in Article 46 §§ 1 and 2 of the Social Security Code, Book VI (Sozialgesetzbuch Nr. VI) should be construed as encompassing the surviving partner in a civil partnership.

On 26 November 2004 the Fulda Social Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. According to the court the surviving partner in a civil partnership could not be called a “widower” in the generally accepted sense of the term. Furthermore, the applicant’s civil partnership had not lasted longer than a year, which would have led to statutory exclusion from the benefit even for married couples.

During the appeal proceedings the respondent acknowledged the applicant’s claim to a survivor’s pension as of 1 January 2005, when the relevant amendments to the Civil Partnership Act became effective.

The remaining leapfrog appeal on points of law (Sprungrevision) was dismissed on 13 December 2005 by the Federal Social Court. The court pointed out that the respondent had partly acknowledged the applicant’s claim, so that the appeal concerned only the period from July 2002 until December 2004.

On 20 January 2006 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint (no. 1 BvR 170/06) with the Federal Constitutional Court.

On 7 July 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court delivered its judgment in a case (no. 1 BvR 1164/07, hereinafter “the 2007 case”) which had been brought in 2007 concerning the pension rights of a surviving partner in a civil partnership. It found that denying a partner in a civil union the right to a survivor’s pension from the civil servants’ pension scheme, when the legislature had already amended Article 46 §§ 1 and 2 of the Social Security Code, Book VI, in respect of the general pension scheme, violated the principle of non-discrimination as set down in Article 3 of the Basic Law.

On 1 December 2009 the applicant pointed to the above-mentioned judgment and requested a decision to the same effect.

On 11 June 2010 a three-judge panel of the Federal Constitutional Court decided not to review the applicant’s constitutional complaint. In its reasoning the panel explained that the complaint did not raise a pressing constitutional question as the relevant provision of the social security legislation had meanwhile been amended. Even assuming that the legislative provision concerned had violated the Constitution, the Federal Constitutional Court could not have afforded redress as the legislature could not be required to amend a provision that had already become void.

On 13 July 2010 the applicant was served with a copy of the decision.

3. Subsequent developments

On 7 December 2011 the Government informed the Court that in response to the pilot judgment in Rumpf v. Germany (no. 46344/06, 2 September 2010) an Act on Protracted Court Proceedings and Criminal Investigations (Gesetz über den Rechtsschutz bei überlangen Gerichtsverfahren und strafrechtlichen Ermittlungsverfahren) had been published in the Federal Law Gazette and had entered into force on 3 December 2011.

In December 2011 the Court informed the applicant of the enactment of the new domestic remedy and drew his attention to the transitional provision of that Act. Referring to the Brusco v. Italy case ((dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001‑IX), the Court invited the applicant to inform it whether he intended to make use of the new remedy within the time-limit set by the transitional provision in question.

The applicant informed the Court that he intended to file a complaint under the new domestic provisions.

On 6 February 2012 the applicant filed a complaint under the new Act, claiming compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. He complained that constitutional court proceedings that lasted four years, six months and one day were excessively long, even taking the position and function of the Federal Constitutional Court into account. He pointed out that his case could not be considered a particularly difficult one.

In the course of the proceedings the judge rapporteur for the constitutional complaint submitted a statement explaining that when he took office and became judge rapporteur for this complaint on 1 October 2007 it had already been agreed between his predecessor and judge B., who was judge rapporteur for the 2007 case (compare paragraph 16, above), that the handling of the applicant’s complaint should be postponed until the 2007 case had been determined. Subsequently, it became clear that the 2007 case did not pose a problem of retroactivity and therefore did not affect the outcome of the applicant’s constitutional complaint. The judge rapporteur conceded that the applicant’s submissions were sufficiently substantiated for his constitutional complaint to indeed have been dealt with earlier on the basis of the actual reasoning given. However, the judge maintained that it had been in the applicant’s best interest to wait for the court’s ruling in the 2007 case.

The applicant replied that the judge rapporteur’s statement demonstrated that his constitutional complaint had not been given any attention whatsoever in the first year after it was lodged. It would have been obvious even from a cursory examination of the constitutional complaints that his complaint concerned the retroactive application of a legislative amendment. Therefore, any proper comparison of his case with the 2007 case would have easily shown that the two cases were not interdependent.

On 1 October 2012 the complaints panel of the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint under section 97a of the Federal Constitutional Court Act. Citing Gast and Popp v. Germany (no. 29357/95, ECHR 2000‑II), as well as Klein v. Germany (no. 33379/96, 27 July 2000), the Federal Constitutional Court noted that a chronic backlog of cases in the constitutional courts could not justify the excessive length of proceedings. However, when assessing whether the duration of proceedings was excessive, the Federal Constitutional Court had to consider its special function and position. Unlike the ordinary courts, the capacity and structure of a Constitutional Court were laid down in the Constitution and it served further purposes beyond the administration of individual justice. The scope for adaptation and for the acceleration of proceedings was therefore limited. Furthermore, decisions and judgments of the Federal Constitutional Court had binding inter omnes legal effect and for this reason had to be drafted with the utmost diligence. The court further explained that it was in the nature of constitutional court proceedings that chronological case management was of subordinate importance. Concerning the applicant’s case, the court noted that the actual duration of the proceedings – four and a half years – was unusually long, but not excessive. For the purposes of its examination the Federal Constitutional Court noted that three phases could be distinguished: (a) the phase of over one year between the lodging of the constitutional complaint and the decision to await the outcome of the 2007 case; (b) the phase of two years until a decision had been given in the 2007 case; and (c) the phase of eleven months until the constitutional complaint at issue had been determined. A new judge rapporteur had stepped in at the end of his predecessor’s term of office and his predecessor had had to finish cases of higher priority than that of the applicant. The court maintained that the twelve-month wait in accordance with section 97b §1 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act had not been excessive considering that the Federal Constitutional Court had opted to rule on a similar case concerning the pension rights of surviving partners in a civil union (the 2007 case) before the applicant’s case. The court pointed out that, although in hindsight the present case could have been decided without reference to the “pilot case”, the two cases shared sufficient similarities to justify the decision of the former judge rapporteur. Nothing indicated that the decision to postpone the applicant’s case pending a decision on the 2007 case had been based on arbitrary considerations. The court noted that the applicant had never claimed that the sum of money at issue was of extraordinary financial importance to him. In conclusion, the Federal Constitutional Court argued that after the decision in the 2007 case the applicant’s constitutional complaint had been determined in due time, without any delay.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The Act on Protracted Court Proceedings and Criminal Investigations (Gesetz über den Rechtsschutz bei überlangen Gerichtsverfahren und strafrechtlichen Ermittlungsverfahren, “the Remedy Act”) was published in the Federal Law Gazette – Part I, 2011, pp. 2302 et seq. – on 2 December 2011 and entered into force the next day.

1. Relevant features of the remedy

The Remedy Act introduced general provisions instituting a remedy against any kind of protracted court proceedings. Section 1 applied to criminal and civil proceedings – for details see Taron v. Germany (dec.), no. 53126/07, §§ 19 et seq., 29 May 2012, and Garcia Cancio v. Germany (dec.), no. 19488/09, §§ 27 et seq., 29 May 2012.

For proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court, section 2 of the Remedy Act amended the Federal Constitutional Court Act as follows: “Section 97a (1) Any person who, as the result of the unreasonable length of proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court, experiences a disadvantage as a participant in those proceedings or as a participant in proceedings suspended for the purpose of obtaining a decision from the Federal Constitutional Court shall be afforded reasonable compensation. The reasonableness of the length of proceedings shall be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the particular case, having due regard to the functions and the position of the Federal Constitutional Court. (2) A non-pecuniary disadvantage shall be presumed in cases where proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court have been of unreasonable length. Compensation may be claimed therefor save in particular cases where reparation by other means, such as the mere finding that the length of proceedings was unreasonable, is sufficient. Such compensation shall amount to €1,200 for every year of delay. If the sum thus calculated is not equitable, the Federal Constitutional Court shall assess a higher or lower sum. Section 97b (1) A decision on compensation and reparation shall be rendered if a complaint of undue delay has been lodged with the Federal Constitutional Court. A complaint of undue delay shall be admissible only if the complainant has previously objected to the length of the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court (Verzögerungsrüge). A complaint of undue delay shall be lodged in writing and it shall set out the circumstances purported to establish the unreasonableness of the length of the proceedings. It shall be admissible twelve months at the earliest after the case has been lodged with the Federal Constitutional Court. A complaint of undue delay shall not require a reasoned notification. ... Section 97d (1) The rapporteur in the proceedings concerned shall submit an opinion within one month of receipt of the reasons for the complaint of undue delay. (2) The complaints panel shall decide by a majority. In the event of a tie the complaint of undue delay shall be dismissed. The complaints panel shall render its decision without an oral hearing. Reasons need not be given. (3) The decision is not subject to appeal.”

2. Transitional provisions

In a departure from the general transitional provision under section 23 of the Remedy Act (see for details Taron, § 27, and Garcia Cancio, § 36, both cited above), section 97e of the amended Federal Constitutional Court Act stipulated that, in the case of terminated proceedings whose length might still become or had already become the subject of a complaint before that court, it was not necessary to raise a complaint of undue delay (Verzögerungsrüge) prior to filing a complaint claiming compensation. That complaint had to be lodged with the Federal Constitutional Court by 3 June 2012 at the latest.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e1
001-146353_a11_em1
CODE
DIRECT
68919/10
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-146353_a11_e2
001-146353_a11_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Republic of Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e3
001-146353_a11_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e4
001-146353_a11_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr J. Peter
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e5
001-146353_a11_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
24 November 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e6
001-146353_a11_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr C. Lenz
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e7
001-146353_a11_em7
LOC
NO_MASK
Stuttgart
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146353_a11_e2
001-146353_a11_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
001-146353_a11_em2
German Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146353_a11_e2
001-146353_a11_em9
ORG
NO_MASK
001-146353_a11_em2
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146353_a11_e8
001-146353_a11_em10
PERSON
QUASI
Mr H.-J. Behrens
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e9
001-146353_a11_em11
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Ministry of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e10
001-146353_a11_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
3 June 2013
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em13
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e2
001-146353_a11_em14
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146353_a11_e3
001-146353_a11_em15
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e12
001-146353_a11_em16
DATETIME
QUASI
1948
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e13
001-146353_a11_em17
LOC
QUASI
Ulrichstein
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e14
001-146353_a11_em18
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1 August 2001
SEX
insert
001-146353_a11_e15
001-146353_a11_em19
DEM
NO_MASK
same-sex
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e16
001-146353_a11_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
5 October 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146353_a11_e17
001-146353_a11_em21
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Peter, né V.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e18
001-146353_a11_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
22 June 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e17
001-146353_a11_em23
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Peter, né V.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e19
001-146353_a11_em24
DATETIME
QUASI
September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e20
001-146353_a11_em25
ORG
NO_MASK
German Pension Fund
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146353_a11_e20
001-146353_a11_em26
ORG
NO_MASK
001-146353_a11_em25
Bundesversicherungsanstalt für Angestellte
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e21
001-146353_a11_em27
DATETIME
QUASI
19 November 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e20
001-146353_a11_em28
ORG
NO_MASK
German Pension Fund
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e22
001-146353_a11_em29
DATETIME
QUASI
28 February 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e23
001-146353_a11_em30
DATETIME
QUASI
19 March 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e24
001-146353_a11_em31
ORG
NO_MASK
Fulda Social Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e25
001-146353_a11_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
26 November 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e24
001-146353_a11_em33
ORG
NO_MASK
Fulda Social Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e26
001-146353_a11_em34
DATETIME
QUASI
1 January 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e27
001-146353_a11_em35
DATETIME
QUASI
13 December 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e28
001-146353_a11_em36
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Social Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e29
001-146353_a11_em37
DATETIME
QUASI
July 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e30
001-146353_a11_em38
DATETIME
QUASI
December 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e31
001-146353_a11_em39
DATETIME
QUASI
20 January 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146353_a11_e32
001-146353_a11_em40
CODE
DIRECT
170/06
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em41
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e33
001-146353_a11_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
7 July 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em43
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e34
001-146353_a11_em44
CODE
NO_MASK
1164/07
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e35
001-146353_a11_em45
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e35
001-146353_a11_em46
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e36
001-146353_a11_em47
DATETIME
QUASI
1 December 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e37
001-146353_a11_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
11 June 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em49
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em50
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e38
001-146353_a11_em51
DATETIME
QUASI
13 July 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e39
001-146353_a11_em52
DATETIME
QUASI
7 December 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e2
001-146353_a11_em53
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146353_a11_e40
001-146353_a11_em54
MISC
QUASI
Rumpf v. Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e41
001-146353_a11_em55
CODE
NO_MASK
46344/06
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e42
001-146353_a11_em56
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2 September 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e43
001-146353_a11_em57
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Law Gazette
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e44
001-146353_a11_em58
DATETIME
NO_MASK
3 December 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e45
001-146353_a11_em59
DATETIME
QUASI
December 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146353_a11_e46
001-146353_a11_em60
MISC
NO_MASK
Brusco v. Italy
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e47
001-146353_a11_em61
CODE
NO_MASK
69789/01
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e48
001-146353_a11_em62
DATETIME
QUASI
6 February 2012
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146353_a11_e49
001-146353_a11_em63
DATETIME
QUASI
four years, six months and one day
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em64
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e50
001-146353_a11_em65
DATETIME
QUASI
1 October 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146353_a11_e51
001-146353_a11_em66
PERSON
NO_MASK
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e35
001-146353_a11_em67
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e35
001-146353_a11_em68
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e35
001-146353_a11_em69
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e35
001-146353_a11_em70
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e52
001-146353_a11_em71
DATETIME
NO_MASK
first year
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e35
001-146353_a11_em72
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e53
001-146353_a11_em73
DATETIME
QUASI
1 October 2012
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em74
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e54
001-146353_a11_em75
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court Act
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146353_a11_e55
001-146353_a11_em76
MISC
NO_MASK
Gast and Popp v. Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e56
001-146353_a11_em77
CODE
NO_MASK
29357/95
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-146353_a11_e57
001-146353_a11_em78
MISC
NO_MASK
Klein v. Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e58
001-146353_a11_em79
CODE
NO_MASK
33379/96
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e59
001-146353_a11_em80
DATETIME
NO_MASK
27 July 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em81
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em82
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e60
001-146353_a11_em83
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em84
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e61
001-146353_a11_em85
DATETIME
NO_MASK
four and a half years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em86
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e62
001-146353_a11_em87
DATETIME
NO_MASK
one year
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e35
001-146353_a11_em88
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e63
001-146353_a11_em89
DATETIME
NO_MASK
two years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e35
001-146353_a11_em90
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e64
001-146353_a11_em91
DATETIME
NO_MASK
eleven months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e65
001-146353_a11_em92
DATETIME
NO_MASK
twelve-month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e54
001-146353_a11_em93
MISC
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court Act
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em94
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e35
001-146353_a11_em95
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e35
001-146353_a11_em96
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em97
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e35
001-146353_a11_em98
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e51
001-146353_a11_em99
PERSON
NO_MASK
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e43
001-146353_a11_em100
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Law Gazette
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e66
001-146353_a11_em101
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e67
001-146353_a11_em102
DATETIME
QUASI
2 December 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146353_a11_e68
001-146353_a11_em103
MISC
NO_MASK
Taron v. Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e69
001-146353_a11_em104
CODE
NO_MASK
53126/07
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e70
001-146353_a11_em105
DATETIME
QUASI
29 May 2012
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-146353_a11_e71
001-146353_a11_em106
MISC
NO_MASK
Garcia Cancio v. Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e72
001-146353_a11_em107
CODE
NO_MASK
19488/09
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e70
001-146353_a11_em108
DATETIME
QUASI
29 May 2012
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em109
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146353_a11_e54
001-146353_a11_em110
MISC
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court Act
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em111
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em112
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em113
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em114
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e73
001-146353_a11_em115
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
€1,200
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e74
001-146353_a11_em116
DATETIME
NO_MASK
every year
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em117
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em118
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em119
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e75
001-146353_a11_em120
DATETIME
NO_MASK
twelve months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em121
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e76
001-146353_a11_em122
DATETIME
NO_MASK
one month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e77
001-146353_a11_em123
PERSON
NO_MASK
Garcia Cancio
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e54
001-146353_a11_em124
MISC
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court Act
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e11
001-146353_a11_em125
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146353_a11_e78
001-146353_a11_em126
DATETIME
QUASI
3 June 2012
J. Peter
DEU
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: J. Peter