PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 75737/01) 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 Peter Roland Schwarzenberger (“the applicant”), on 26 July 2001.

The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr V. Hohbach, a lawyer practising in Heilbronn. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs A. Wittling-Vogel, Ministerialdirigentin, of the Federal Ministry of Justice.

On 27 January 2005 the Court decided to communicate the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.

On 1 April 2006 this case was assigned to the newly constituted Fifth Section (Rule 25 § 5 and Rule 52 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1957 and is at present serving a prison sentence in Bruchsal in Germany.

The applicant’s arrest and the criminal proceedings against Mr D.

On 23 April 1996 the applicant and his suspected accomplice D. were arrested in Cadiz in Spain on suspicion of having murdered Mrs D. On 6 May 1996 the Heilbronn District Court (Amtsgericht) issued an arrest warrant against the applicant. As the applicant objected to being extradited to Germany, he remained in detention in Spain.

On 5 July 1996 D. – the victim’s adopted son – was extradited to Germany.

On 8 April 1997 a chamber of the Heilbronn Regional Court (Landgericht), presided by judge V. and also comprising judges W. and B., convicted D. of murder and of having committed robbery followed by death constituting one single offence (Mord in Tateinheit mit Raub mit Todesfolge), and of attempted murder. D. was found guilty of having murdered his adoptive mother Mrs D., of having attempted to murder his adoptive father and of having robbed his adoptive parents’ belongings. According to the findings of the Regional Court, which were primarily based on the statements and admissions of the accused, these offences had been committed jointly with the applicant.

The passages of the judgment establishing the facts of the case which refer to the applicant read as follows: “Schwarzenberger, who was primarily interested in the loot, having been at first indifferent to the murder ..., consented to drive to Germany with the accused...On the ground floor, Schwarzenberger looked for an appropriate weapon. He removed the loose but stable handle from a big axe and handed it to the accused. Having in the meantime agreed to the murder, he did not want to run any risks. The accused could see that Schwarzenberger put a hammer weighing 200 grams into his pocket in order to be prepared for any eventualities...As Schwarzenberger and the accused feared the failure of their endeavour, the former approached Mrs D., kept her mouth shut with a pillow and inflicted severe hammer blows on her head in order to kill her. The accused was aware of this because he knew that a human life counted for little with Schwarzenberger...The accused credibly submitted to the court that he had informed Schwarzenberger about his plan to murder his adoptive father, which left the latter indifferent because he was primarily interested in the loot. The chamber deduces from this submission that the accused knew that a human life counted for little with Schwarzenberger...Because of the blows inflicted by the accused, the chamber is convinced that the accused consented to Schwarzenberger’s brutal actions, even if it meant her death, in order to reach his real aim to kill his adoptive father...Because of the many heavy hammer blows on the victim’s head, the accused was aware that Schwarzenberger wanted to kill the adoptive mother of the accused, at least in order to gain the prospected loot...By following Schwarzenberger’s request to keep Mrs D. at bay by dealing her a blow, the accused expressed his consent to Schwarzenberger’s massive use of force and was willing to accept the action...Cooperating with Schwarzenberger, the accused wanted to slay his sleeping victim, thus perfidiously exploiting his unsuspecting victim’s defencelessness. Despite the accused’s intention to commit the crime on his own, Schwarzenberger was so intensely involved in the planning and in the choice of a weapon that his actions did not merely constitute supportive measures, but an autonomous part of the action, the more so as the dominant Schwarzenberger pursued his own interest in the deed: to have access to the loot.”

The Regional Court further noted that this assessment of the facts followed essentially the accused’s own submissions, who tried to place all responsibility on the applicant. Nevertheless, the Regional Court found him guilty himself. It further considered whether it was necessary to hear the applicant – who remained at the time in detention in Spain – as a witness in the proceedings against D. Having regard to the fact that the applicant had denied any involvement in the crime, the chamber did not expect that the applicant’s testimony would yield any further information.

2. The criminal proceedings against the applicant

On 22 April 1997 the applicant was extradited to Germany.

On 12 February 1999 the main hearing was opened before a chamber of the Heilbronn Regional Court presided by judge W. and including judge B.; both had already sat in the chamber which had previously tried D.

At the opening of the trial, the applicant objected to the participation of judges W. and B. on the ground of possible bias (Ablehnung wegen Besorgnis der Befangenheit). He argued that the passages in the court’s judgment against D., seen from his viewpoint, but also objectively, were susceptible of raising doubts about the impartiality of these judges. On being informed that a chamber presided by judge V. – who had presided over the trial against D. – would decide about the objection, the applicant raised an objection against V. on the same grounds.

On 12 February 1999 judges W. and B. submitted their respective official statements (dienstliche Äusserung) on the objection. They pointed out that it would have been more satisfactory to try both D. and the applicant in joint proceedings, as the same facts were concerned. However, this had not been possible as D. had already been extradited on 5 July 1996 and it could not be foreseen at the time when the extradition proceedings relating to the applicant would be terminated. Having regard to the necessity to expedite proceedings, the chamber found it appropriate to consider both cases in separate proceedings. During the main proceedings against D., the applicant had not been available to the court. The establishment of the facts of the case in the judgment against D. were mainly founded on D.’s own submissions. In order to assess the extent of D.’s guilt, it had been essential to cast light on the applicant’s involvement. As the chamber could only base its assessment on D.’s own submissions, they had been aware of the fact that their sources of knowledge were limited and that an assessment of the applicant’s possible involvement had to be left to the main proceedings against the applicant. Both judges emphasised that they had neither reached a final opinion nor adopted an inner attitude which could negatively influence their impartiality towards the applicant.

On 16 February 1999 the substitute chamber of the Heilbronn Regional Court rejected the applicant’s objection against the presiding judge V. It found that the simple fact that a judge had been previously dealing with the same facts in a case against another, subsequently convicted person did not suffice to justify an objection against that judge because an accused person would reasonably presume that a judge based his judgment exclusively on the outcome of the public hearing in the specific case. According to the court, an objection would have been justified only if the judgment of 8 April 1997 had contained unjustified and degrading value judgments on the applicant. The court found this not to be the case, because it was clear from the judgment of 8 April 1997 that the passages referring to the applicant were exclusively based on D.’s submissions, as the applicant himself, having objected to his extradition from Spain, had at the time not been available to the court.

On 17 February 1999 the substitute chamber dismissed the applicant’s objection against judges W. and B. for the same reasons.

On 10 December 1999 the Heilbronn Regional Court convicted the applicant, who had denied any involvement in the crimes, of murder and of having committed robbery followed by death constituting one single offence and sentenced him to life imprisonment. According to the Regional Court’s findings, the applicant had killed Mrs D. in order to cover up the robbery; while D. had approved of the applicant’s actions. The Regional Court based its judgment mainly on the applicant’s own statements given both during preliminary investigations and during the main hearing, on incriminating testimony given by D., which the chamber followed only to a certain extent, and on corroborative evidence such as the analysis of traces found at the scene of the crime.

The applicant subsequently appealed on points of law, arguing that judges B. and W. should have been excluded from the trial. On 7 March 2001 the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) rejected the appeal as unfounded, following a statement of the Federal Public Prosecutor (Generalbundesanwalt) which confirmed the Regional Court’s reasoning on the issue of the impartiality of the judges.

On 22 May 2001 the applicant, who was represented by counsel, lodged a constitutional complaint in which he gave a complete account of the proceedings before the lower courts and alleged that the impugned decisions violated his right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the German Basic Law and by the Convention.

The relevant passages of the complaint read as follows: “Article 101 § 1 in conjunction with Articles 103 and 19 § 4 of the German Basic Law, and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, guarantee that criminal cases shall be heard in a fair trial, without arbitrariness and, in particular, by an unbiased and impartial judge. According to section 24 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a judge can be challenged for fear of bias if there is a justifiable reason to doubt his impartiality. This is the case if the accused, taking into account the facts known to him, has reason to believe that a judge’s attitude towards him might negatively influence his impartiality and neutrality. In general, this fear cannot be based on the mere fact that a judge has previously convicted another person who participated in the same crime and, on that occasion, ruled on the involvement of the accused. However, a different approach is urgently needed if a judge’s behaviour in the previous proceedings (or, similarly, his reasoning in a previous judgment) justifies the fear of bias. In particular, negative value judgments about the accused’s personality, or about his actions before or after the crime, may induce the accused reasonably to fear that a judge might not be impartial towards him in the new proceedings. It has been said of the person accused in the present case, who has denied his involvement in the crime, that a human life counted for little to him, that he acted brutally and used massive violence, and that he, as a dominant actor, made an autonomous contribution to the attempted murder of the adoptive father. On the basis of such value judgments, the accused does indeed have reason to fear that the judges, who were deciding for a second time on the same crime, whether consciously or unconsciously, would maintain their previous opinions ... . Comparing this case with (one) published in volume 24 of the collection of the decisions of the Federal Court of Justice, it is clear that the applicant has been exposed to a high degree of value judgments on his person and his actions. If one were to apply the ruling of the Federal Court of Justice to the present case, there would no longer be any possibility of removing a judge for fear of bias due to the decision in a previous case ... . Such a result is unacceptable for the person concerned, as has been sufficiently demonstrated. Article 6 of the Convention (impartial, unbiased judge and fair trial) has been violated for the same reasons.”

On 20 June 2001 the Federal Constitutional Court, sitting as a panel of three judges, refused to accept the applicant’s complaint for adjudication.

The relevant passages of that court’s decision read as follows: “The constitutional complaint is not accepted for adjudication because there are no grounds therefor. The constitutional complaint has no prospect of success, because it is inadmissible. Its reasoning does not meet the minimum requirements found in section 23 § 1, second sentence, and section 92 of the Rules of Procedure of the Federal Constitutional Court. The applicant has to describe the alleged violation of a Basic Right and the proceedings leading to its violation in a substantiated and conclusive way (cf. the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court published in the official collection BVerfGE 40, p. 141, [at p. 156]; 49, p. 24, [at p. 47 et seq.]). The allegation that the Regional Court rejected the objection against the competent judges on erroneous grounds does not meet these requirements, because not every rejection of an objection which is erroneous with respect to ordinary laws means that there is at the same time a violation of Article 101 § 1 of the Basic Law. According to the consistent case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court, a violation of the right to a decision rendered by the legally competent judge (Recht auf den gesetzlichen Richter) is only possible if the decision of the court on the objection is based on arbitrary considerations (cf. BVerfGE 11, p. 1, [at p. 6]; 29, p. 45, [at p. 48 et seq.]; 31, p. 145, [164]), or if the court has fundamentally misjudged the meaning and implications of Article 101 § 1, second sentence (cf. BVerfGE 82, 286, [299], 87, 282, [285]). Accordingly, a mere allegation that the objections have been rejected in violation of the ordinary legal provision of section 24 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not suffice to substantiate an alleged violation of the constitution.“
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e1
001-76708_a11_em1
CODE
DIRECT
75737/01
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-76708_a11_e2
001-76708_a11_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Republic of Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e2
001-76708_a11_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e3
001-76708_a11_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Peter Roland Schwarzenberger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e4
001-76708_a11_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
26 July 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e5
001-76708_a11_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr V. Hohbach
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e6
001-76708_a11_em7
LOC
NO_MASK
Heilbronn
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e2
001-76708_a11_em8
DEM
NO_MASK
001-76708_a11_em2
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e2
001-76708_a11_em9
ORG
NO_MASK
001-76708_a11_em2
German Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e2
001-76708_a11_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
001-76708_a11_em2
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e7
001-76708_a11_em11
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs A. Wittling-Vogel
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e8
001-76708_a11_em12
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Ministry of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e9
001-76708_a11_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
27 January 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e2
001-76708_a11_em14
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e10
001-76708_a11_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
1 April 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e11
001-76708_a11_em16
DATETIME
QUASI
1957
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e12
001-76708_a11_em17
LOC
QUASI
Bruchsal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e2
001-76708_a11_em18
LOC
NO_MASK
Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e13
001-76708_a11_em19
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e14
001-76708_a11_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
23 April 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-76708_a11_e13
001-76708_a11_em21
PERSON
NO_MASK
001-76708_a11_em19
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e15
001-76708_a11_em22
LOC
QUASI
Cadiz
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e16
001-76708_a11_em23
LOC
QUASI
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e17
001-76708_a11_em24
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mrs D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e18
001-76708_a11_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
6 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e19
001-76708_a11_em26
ORG
QUASI
Heilbronn District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-76708_a11_e20
001-76708_a11_em27
ORG
NO_MASK
Amtsgericht
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e2
001-76708_a11_em28
ORG
NO_MASK
001-76708_a11_em2
Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e16
001-76708_a11_em29
LOC
QUASI
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e21
001-76708_a11_em30
DATETIME
QUASI
5 July 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e13
001-76708_a11_em31
PERSON
NO_MASK
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e22
001-76708_a11_em32
MISC
QUASI
adopted son
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e2
001-76708_a11_em33
ORG
NO_MASK
Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e23
001-76708_a11_em34
DATETIME
QUASI
8 April 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e24
001-76708_a11_em35
ORG
QUASI
Heilbronn Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e25
001-76708_a11_em36
ORG
NO_MASK
Landgericht
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e26
001-76708_a11_em37
PERSON
NO_MASK
V.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e27
001-76708_a11_em38
PERSON
NO_MASK
W.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e28
001-76708_a11_em39
PERSON
NO_MASK
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e13
001-76708_a11_em40
PERSON
NO_MASK
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e13
001-76708_a11_em41
PERSON
NO_MASK
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e29
001-76708_a11_em42
MISC
QUASI
adoptive mother
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e17
001-76708_a11_em43
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mrs D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e30
001-76708_a11_em44
MISC
QUASI
adoptive father
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e31
001-76708_a11_em45
MISC
QUASI
adoptive parents
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e24
001-76708_a11_em46
ORG
NO_MASK
001-76708_a11_em35
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e3
001-76708_a11_em47
PERSON
DIRECT
001-76708_a11_em4
Schwarzenberger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e2
001-76708_a11_em48
ORG
NO_MASK
Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e3
001-76708_a11_em49
PERSON
DIRECT
Schwarzenberger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e32
001-76708_a11_em50
MISC
QUASI
big axe
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e3
001-76708_a11_em51
PERSON
DIRECT
Schwarzenberger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e33
001-76708_a11_em52
MISC
QUASI
hammer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e34
001-76708_a11_em53
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
200 grams
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e3
001-76708_a11_em54
PERSON
DIRECT
Schwarzenberger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e17
001-76708_a11_em55
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mrs D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e35
001-76708_a11_em56
MISC
QUASI
pillow
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e33
001-76708_a11_em57
MISC
QUASI
hammer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e3
001-76708_a11_em58
PERSON
DIRECT
Schwarzenberger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e3
001-76708_a11_em59
PERSON
DIRECT
Schwarzenberger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e30
001-76708_a11_em60
MISC
QUASI
adoptive father
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e3
001-76708_a11_em61
PERSON
DIRECT
Schwarzenberger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e3
001-76708_a11_em62
PERSON
DIRECT
Schwarzenberger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e30
001-76708_a11_em63
MISC
QUASI
adoptive father
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e33
001-76708_a11_em64
MISC
QUASI
hammer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e3
001-76708_a11_em65
PERSON
DIRECT
Schwarzenberger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e29
001-76708_a11_em66
MISC
QUASI
adoptive mother
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e3
001-76708_a11_em67
PERSON
DIRECT
Schwarzenberger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e17
001-76708_a11_em68
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mrs D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e3
001-76708_a11_em69
PERSON
DIRECT
Schwarzenberger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e3
001-76708_a11_em70
PERSON
DIRECT
Schwarzenberger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e3
001-76708_a11_em71
PERSON
DIRECT
Schwarzenberger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e3
001-76708_a11_em72
PERSON
DIRECT
Schwarzenberger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e24
001-76708_a11_em73
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e24
001-76708_a11_em74
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e16
001-76708_a11_em75
LOC
QUASI
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e13
001-76708_a11_em76
PERSON
NO_MASK
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e36
001-76708_a11_em77
DATETIME
QUASI
22 April 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e2
001-76708_a11_em78
ORG
NO_MASK
Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e37
001-76708_a11_em79
DATETIME
QUASI
12 February 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e24
001-76708_a11_em80
ORG
QUASI
Heilbronn Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e27
001-76708_a11_em81
PERSON
NO_MASK
W.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e28
001-76708_a11_em82
PERSON
NO_MASK
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e13
001-76708_a11_em83
PERSON
NO_MASK
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e27
001-76708_a11_em84
PERSON
NO_MASK
W.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e28
001-76708_a11_em85
PERSON
NO_MASK
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e38
001-76708_a11_em86
MISC
QUASI
bias
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e39
001-76708_a11_em87
MISC
QUASI
Ablehnung wegen Besorgnis der Befangenheit
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e13
001-76708_a11_em88
PERSON
NO_MASK
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e26
001-76708_a11_em89
PERSON
NO_MASK
V.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e13
001-76708_a11_em90
PERSON
NO_MASK
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-76708_a11_e26
001-76708_a11_em91
PERSON
NO_MASK
V.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e37
001-76708_a11_em92
DATETIME
QUASI
12 February 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e27
001-76708_a11_em93
PERSON
NO_MASK
W.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e28
001-76708_a11_em94
PERSON
NO_MASK
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e13
001-76708_a11_em95
PERSON
NO_MASK
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e13
001-76708_a11_em96
PERSON
NO_MASK
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e21
001-76708_a11_em97
DATETIME
QUASI
5 July 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e13
001-76708_a11_em98
PERSON
NO_MASK
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e13
001-76708_a11_em99
PERSON
NO_MASK
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e13
001-76708_a11_em100
PERSON
NO_MASK
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e13
001-76708_a11_em101
PERSON
NO_MASK
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e13
001-76708_a11_em102
PERSON
NO_MASK
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e40
001-76708_a11_em103
DATETIME
QUASI
16 February 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e24
001-76708_a11_em104
ORG
QUASI
Heilbronn Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e26
001-76708_a11_em105
PERSON
NO_MASK
V.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e23
001-76708_a11_em106
DATETIME
QUASI
8 April 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e23
001-76708_a11_em107
DATETIME
QUASI
8 April 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e13
001-76708_a11_em108
PERSON
NO_MASK
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e16
001-76708_a11_em109
LOC
QUASI
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e41
001-76708_a11_em110
DATETIME
QUASI
17 February 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e27
001-76708_a11_em111
PERSON
NO_MASK
W.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e28
001-76708_a11_em112
PERSON
NO_MASK
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e42
001-76708_a11_em113
DATETIME
QUASI
10 December 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e24
001-76708_a11_em114
ORG
QUASI
Heilbronn Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e24
001-76708_a11_em115
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e17
001-76708_a11_em116
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mrs D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e13
001-76708_a11_em117
PERSON
NO_MASK
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e24
001-76708_a11_em118
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e13
001-76708_a11_em119
PERSON
NO_MASK
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e28
001-76708_a11_em120
PERSON
NO_MASK
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e27
001-76708_a11_em121
PERSON
NO_MASK
W.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e43
001-76708_a11_em122
DATETIME
QUASI
7 March 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e44
001-76708_a11_em123
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Court of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-76708_a11_e44
001-76708_a11_em124
ORG
NO_MASK
001-76708_a11_em123
Bundesgerichtshof
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e45
001-76708_a11_em125
PERSON
NO_MASK
Federal Public Prosecutor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e45
001-76708_a11_em126
PERSON
NO_MASK
001-76708_a11_em125
Generalbundesanwalt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e24
001-76708_a11_em127
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e46
001-76708_a11_em128
DATETIME
QUASI
22 May 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e47
001-76708_a11_em129
MISC
QUASI
fair trial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e48
001-76708_a11_em130
MISC
QUASI
Article 101 § 1
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e49
001-76708_a11_em131
MISC
QUASI
Articles 103
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e50
001-76708_a11_em132
MISC
QUASI
19 § 4
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e51
001-76708_a11_em133
MISC
QUASI
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e47
001-76708_a11_em134
MISC
QUASI
fair trial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e52
001-76708_a11_em135
MISC
QUASI
unbiased
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e53
001-76708_a11_em136
MISC
QUASI
impartial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e54
001-76708_a11_em137
MISC
QUASI
24 § 2
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e38
001-76708_a11_em138
MISC
QUASI
bias
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e38
001-76708_a11_em139
MISC
QUASI
bias
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e53
001-76708_a11_em140
MISC
QUASI
impartial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e30
001-76708_a11_em141
MISC
QUASI
adoptive father
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e44
001-76708_a11_em142
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Court of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e44
001-76708_a11_em143
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Court of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e38
001-76708_a11_em144
MISC
QUASI
bias
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e53
001-76708_a11_em145
MISC
QUASI
impartial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e52
001-76708_a11_em146
MISC
QUASI
unbiased
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e47
001-76708_a11_em147
MISC
QUASI
fair trial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e55
001-76708_a11_em148
DATETIME
QUASI
20 June 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e56
001-76708_a11_em149
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e57
001-76708_a11_em150
MISC
QUASI
23 § 1
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e56
001-76708_a11_em151
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e58
001-76708_a11_em152
MISC
QUASI
BVerfGE 40, p. 141, [at p. 156]; 49, p. 24, [at p. 47 et seq.]
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e24
001-76708_a11_em153
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e48
001-76708_a11_em154
MISC
QUASI
Article 101 § 1
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e56
001-76708_a11_em155
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e59
001-76708_a11_em156
MISC
QUASI
legally competent judge
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-76708_a11_e60
001-76708_a11_em157
MISC
QUASI
Recht auf den gesetzlichen Richter
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e61
001-76708_a11_em158
MISC
QUASI
BVerfGE 11, p. 1, [at p. 6]; 29, p. 45, [at p. 48 et seq.]; 31, p. 145, [164]
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-76708_a11_e48
001-76708_a11_em159
MISC
QUASI
Article 101 § 1
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e62
001-76708_a11_em160
MISC
QUASI
BVerfGE 82, 286, [299], 87, 282, [285]
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-76708_a11_e54
001-76708_a11_em161
MISC
QUASI
24 § 2
Peter Roland Schwarzenberger
DEU
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Peter Roland Schwarzenberger