PROCEDURE

The case originated in three applications (nos. 21980/06, 26944/07 and 36948/08) 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 the German national, Mr Iradj Kuhlen-Rafsandjani (“the applicant”), on 29 May 2006, 6 June 2007 and 11 July 2008 respectively.

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

The applicant alleged, in particular, that the length of two sets of proceedings concerning custody of his children had been excessive.

On 9 December 2009 the President of the Fifth Section decided to give notice of the applications to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the applications at the same time (Article 29 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Heidelberg.

A. Background to the case

The applicant and his former wife married in 1996. They have two children, a son born in December 1992 and a daughter born in May 1996. Until 1997 the applicant assumed a major part of the child care while the mother completed her studies. In July 1997 the couple separated and the children remained with the mother. The applicant had regular contact with his children until the beginning of 1998 when the mother and children moved from Heidelberg to Rees in North Rhine-Westphalia. Following the move the mother's parents assumed a large part of the child care because the mother was in full-time employment.

The applicant subsequently found that his regular contacts with the children were obstructed by the mother and her parents and lodged an application for the regulation of his contact rights (Umgangsrecht) with the Emmerich District Court in March 1998. By a court decision of 23 July 1998 (file no. 5 F 105/98) he was granted contact with his children every second and fourth weekend of the month from 6 p.m. Friday to 6 p.m. Sunday.

Since disputes regarding the applicant's contact with his children persisted, the applicant instituted further proceedings for the regulation of his contact rights. At the same time, proceedings for a provisional decision on custody were opened, as well as divorce proceedings which also dealt with the issues of custody and contact rights as ancillary matters (Folgesachen). The proceedings were to a large extent conducted jointly until the applicant's former wife's petition for divorce was granted by a judgment dated 29 November 2001 and custody of the children was decided as an ancillary matter to the divorce. However, no decision on the applicant's contact rights was taken at that time.

The parties continued to argue about the applicant's contact rights with the children and regular contact was interrupted repeatedly and for longer intervals. The applicant instituted several further proceedings for the regulation of his contact rights on his own behalf and on behalf of his children, as well as proceedings to restrict contact between the children and their grandparents who, according to the applicant, were manipulating the children so as to alienate them from him. A court settlement on the regulation of the applicant's contact rights, concluded on 9 September 2002, was never accepted by the applicant, and he later challenged it.

B. The proceedings concerning custody of the children and the applicant's contact rights

1. The proceedings before the divorce

On 31 August 1998 the applicant filed an application with the Emmerich District Court to be granted contact with his children in accordance with the aforementioned decision of 23 July 1998, arguing that the mother was not complying with the regulations set out therein. The proceedings were instituted under file no. 5 F 272/98. At approximately the same time custody proceedings were opened before the same court under file no. 5 F 283/98. A first hearing in the custody and contact rights proceedings was held on 29 September 1998, during which the older child was heard.

In 1999 the applicant's wife filed a petition for divorce with the Emmerich District Court under file no. 5 F 18/99.

A joint hearing in the custody, contact rights and divorce proceedings took place on 22 April 1999. The parties agreed to the commissioning of an expert opinion on a possible regulation of custody and contact rights. They further agreed that until the completion of the expert opinion the contact of the applicant with his children should be provisionally regulated by the acting judge in cooperation with the Kleve child protection agency (Kinderschutzbund).

On 28 April 1999 the District Court ordered an expert opinion on the question of what attribution of custody rights and – should sole custody be awarded to the mother – what contact with their father would be in the children's best interest.

In the meantime the applicant had supervised contact in cooperation with the Kleve child protection agency, as determined for the transitional period following the hearing of 22 April 1999. However, by written submissions dated 12 August 1999 he revoked his approval of the supervised contacts and applied to the District Court for contact in accordance with the regulations set out in the court's decision of 23 July 1998, as his attempts to exercise his contact rights in August and September 1998 had been to no avail.

At a court hearing on 28 September 1999 the parties agreed that from 15 October 1999 the applicant would be entitled to visit his children every fortnight, accompanied by a representative of the Kleve child protection agency, and that he could have telephone contact with the children every two weeks at a set time. Nevertheless, it appears that regular contact between the father and the children ceased temporarily during the year 2000.

The expert opinion was finalised on 31 August 2000. The mother had previously cancelled appointments for appraisals in connection with the drawing up of the expert opinion, thereby delaying its completion.

In view of the repeated disputes between the parents and the fact that the children had been living with the mother for a considerable time and were settled, the expert recommended that sole custody be transferred to her. However, finding that the mother and grandparents were influencing the children against their father, she proposed that the question of where the children should reside (Aufenthaltsbestimmungsrecht) be referred to the Rees Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt) with a view to ensuring the establishment of regular contact between the applicant and his children. The expert further recommended that the applicant be granted contact every second weekend on Saturday and Sunday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. at the children's home in Rees and suggested that the applicant should be entitled to spend holidays of one or several weeks with the children at his home in Heidelberg.

At a further joint hearing in the separate custody, contact rights and divorce proceedings on 19 October 2000, the District Court again heard the parties, as well as the Kleve child protection agency, which had been appointed as the children's curator ad litem (Verfahrenspfleger). The mother requested sole custody of the children for the duration of the separation of the spouses. The applicant asked to be granted contact rights in accordance with his request as reformulated on 18 October 2000 including, in addition to regular contact at the weekends, the right to spend the second Christmas holiday and half of each of the summer, autumn and Easter holidays with his children. The curator ad litem emphasised, in particular, that the son's apparent rejection of his father was due to the influence of the mother and the grandparents and recommended that regular contact between the son and the father be re-established as soon as possible.

On 9 November 2000, in the separate custody proceedings, the District Court decided to provisionally grant sole custody of the children to the mother. The District Court found that relations between the parents had deteriorated to the extent that joint custody was no longer in the children's best interest and since the children's main focal point and familiar environment remained with the mother it was in their interest that sole custody be awarded to her. However, the District Court deprived the mother of the right to determine the children's place of residence because her past behaviour had demonstrated that she was not willing to accept regular contact between the father and his children. It appointed the Kleve District Youth Welfare Office as the children's guardian in this respect (Aufenthaltsbestimmungsrechtspfleger). The District Court reserved its decision on the details of the applicant's contact rights until further consultation with the guardian.

On 13 December 2000 the applicant appealed against the attribution of sole custody to the mother and requested legal aid for the appeal proceedings. By a decision of 17 May 2001 in the divorce proceedings the District Court suspended the custody proceedings conducted as an ancillary matter to the divorce proceedings pending the decision of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal on the applicant's appeal.

On 21 May 2001 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's request for legal aid in the appellate proceedings on the ground that his claim was devoid of any prospect of success. The Court of Appeal confirmed that, in view of the tensions and lack of cooperation between the parents, the transfer of sole custody to the mother was in the children's best interest. Furthermore, by transferring the right to determine the children's place of residence to the Kleve District Youth Welfare Office, the District Court had set the stage for implementing regular contact between the father and his children.

Regarding the contact rights proceedings, the applicant or his counsel reminded the District Court on several occasions that the question of contact rights was still outstanding. By a decision dated 18 June 2001 the District Court, in view of failed mediation attempts by the guardian, set a deadline of 20 July 2001 for the parties to reach an agreement on the contact rights, failing which these would have to be determined by a court decision after consultation with the guardian. The District Court referred to the expert report and stressed that the implementation of the applicant's contact rights could no longer be delayed.

By a letter dated 12 July 2001 the District Court asked the parties whether a decision in the divorce and ancillary custody proceedings could be taken solely on the basis of the written submissions of the parties. On 18 July 2001 the applicant's counsel agreed.

On 27 August 2001 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of the District Court dated 9 November 2000 in the proceedings regarding the provisional attribution of sole custody to the mother (5 F 283/98), referring to the reasoning given in its decision of 21 May 2001.

By written submissions of 4 October 2001 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court against the decisions of the Emmerich District Court of 9 November 2000 and the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal of 27 August 2001 regarding the provisional regulation of custody.

By a joint judgment (Verbundurteil) of 29 November 2001 the District Court granted the wife's petition for divorce and transferred sole custody of the children to her. The court again found that, in view of the lack of cooperation between the parents on matters concerning their children, as demonstrated in particular in the previous separate proceedings on the provisional regulation of custody, joint custody was not an option. Since the children's main focal point for several years had been their mother, sole custody had to be awarded to her.

The applicant appealed on 18 February 2002 and requested to be granted joint custody with the mother and to leave the right to determine the children's place of residence with a guardian.

By written submissions of 7 March 2002 the Kleve District Youth Welfare Office recommended that sole custody remain with the mother but at the same time the right to determine the children's place of residence should lie with the District Youth Welfare Office.

On 10 May 2002 a hearing took place before the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal to which the children had also been summoned. The children attended the hearing but were not heard by the Court of Appeal.

By a decision of 26 June 2002 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal partially varied the judgment of the District Court dated 29 November 2001 (5 F 18/99). It confirmed the attribution of sole custody to the mother but, with a view to enabling and encouraging regular contact between the father and his children, appointed the Kleve District Youth Welfare Office as guardian as far as the right to determine the children's place of residence was concerned.

By written submissions dated 30 July 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the decisions of the District Court of 29 November 2001 and the Court of Appeal of 26 June 2002 complaining, in particular, that the children had not been heard by either the District Court or the Court of Appeal.

The proceedings regarding the applicant's contact rights following the divorce

Following the divorce the parties continued to argue about the applicant's contact rights. The applicant unsuccessfully objected twice to the participation of the acting judge in the respective proceedings (5 F 272/98). On 5 September 2002 a hearing took place. The applicant did not attend in person but was represented by counsel. The parties, the children's guardian and their curator ad litem were heard. The applicant, represented by his counsel, and his former wife entered into a court settlement (Prozessvergleich) stipulating that the applicant should have contact with the children every fortnight on Saturdays or Sundays from 2 p.m. in the mother's presence and by prior agreement with her. The parties further agreed that with effect from 2003 they would plan at least one holiday per year with the children at approximately the same place and time, so as to enable the applicant to meet the children regularly for a period of several days during the holidays. The applicant was further granted the right to visit the children at their mother's house on the occasion of the Iranian public holidays at a time to be previously agreed with the mother.

The applicant subsequently challenged the court settlement on the ground that he had not authorised counsel to enter into such agreement. He further alleged that the agreement was void since it did not sufficiently take into account the interests of the children and had therefore been concluded contra bonos mores. On 10 July 2003 a hearing took place which was attended by the applicant and a representative of the Kleve Youth Welfare Office in its capacity as guardian. The mother did not attend. On 28 August 2003 the District Court rejected the applicant's further application for a decision on his contact rights since the court settlement of 5 September 2002 constituted a binding agreement between the parties in this regard. On 2 April 2004 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the settlement was neither invalid nor void and had therefore effectively terminated the proceedings.

On 4 October 2004 the applicant filed an application with the Emmerich District Court to modify the settlement and extend his contact rights with a view to enabling him to spend holidays with his children at his home in Heidelberg and to have contact with them for part of the Easter and Christmas holidays. Proceedings were instituted under file no. 5 F 271/04.

On 20 January 2005 the District Court appointed a curator ad litem for the children. A hearing took place on 11 March 2005, during which the children were heard. By a decision of 2 May 2005 the District Court ordered an expert psychological opinion on the question of what regulation of the father's contact rights would be in the children's best interest and whether the mother and the grandparents were facilitating regular contact between the children and their father. For the period until finalisation of the expert opinion the applicant was granted unaccompanied contact with the children every fortnight on Saturdays or Sundays from 10.00 a.m. to 6 p.m.

On 31 August 2005 the District Court, referring to the considerable length of the proceedings in connection with the determination of the applicant's contact rights, discharged the appointed expert on the ground that she had announced that she could not provide an opinion before February 2006. A new expert was appointed who agreed to provide an opinion by the end of November 2005. The applicant objected to the new expert on the ground that she did not have the necessary professional qualifications and refused to be examined by her. An expert opinion could therefore not be established.

On 10 March 2006 a further hearing took place, during which the parties, the curator ad litem and the guardian were heard. By a decision of 29 March 2006 the District Court amended the court settlement of 5 September 2002 and granted the applicant access to his children every second weekend on Saturdays or Sundays from 10.00 a.m. to 6 p.m. but refrained from regulating the applicant's contact rights for the holidays since at the hearing of 11 March 2005 the children had objected to spending holidays alone with their father. The court further found that there was no evidence that the children had been manipulated by their grandparents. It specified that in reaching its conclusion it could not rely on an expert opinion because the father had refused to be examined by the appointed expert.

Following an appeal by the applicant on 10 April 2006, reasoned on 9 May 2006, a hearing took place before the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal on 2 March 2007, during which the parties, the children and their guardian were heard. The curator ad litem could not attend. On 20 March 2007 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and held that an extension of the applicant's contact rights could not be granted, mainly because the children had objected and thus it could not be in their interest. The Court of Appeal also found that while it was probable that the children had been negatively influenced by the mother's family as regards their father, the applicant's fixation on the conflict with the grandparents was partly responsible for the difficulties in finding a practicable regulation of his contact rights with the children.

On 15 May 2007 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal dismissed a complaint by the applicant that his right to be heard had been infringed in the proceedings.

On 12 June 2007 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the decision of the Emmerich District Court of 29 March 2006, as well as the decisions of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal of 20 March 2007 and 15 May 2007 in the proceedings instituted under file no. 5 F 271/04. He also complained about the court settlement dated 5 September 2002 in the proceedings 5 F 272/98 and the related decisions of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal of 2 April 2004.

In February 2008 the applicant filed a request to spend summer holidays with his children at his home in Heidelberg from 23 July to 3 August 2008 (file no. 5 F 33/08). A hearing took place on 21 May 2008, during which the parents and the children were heard. By a decision of 6 June 2008 the District Court rejected the request since the children had objected to spending the holidays with him; the request therefore could not be regarded as being in their interest. On 19 August 2008 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against that decision, since because of the passage of time a decision in the matter was no longer required.

3. The decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court

(a) The separate custody proceedings (file no. 5 F 283/98) 42. On 7 December 2005 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the constitutional complaint (file no. 1 BvR 1716/01) concerning the separate custody proceedings (5 F 283/98) in which the applicant challenged the provisional attribution of sole custody to the mother. The decision was served on the applicant on 20 December 2005. (b) The divorce and ancillary custody proceedings (file no. 5 F 18/99) 43. By a decision of 17 October 2006 (file no. 1 BvR 1400/02) the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the applicant's constitutional complaint regarding the attribution of sole custody to the mother as an ancillary matter to the divorce proceedings. Since the applicant had failed to inform the Federal Constitutional Court of his new address the decision could only be served on him on 9 December 2006. 44. The Federal Constitutional Court held that the applicant's parental rights as guaranteed by the Basic Law included an obligation for the courts to conduct custody proceedings in such a way as to obtain a reliable basis for a decision founded on the child's wellbeing. Section 50 b § 1 of the Act on Non-Contentious Proceedings (Gesetz über die Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit, see “II. Relevant Domestic Law“ below), which required the court to hear a child in person, reflected the constitutional requirement to take the child's wishes into account when taking decisions on custody. A decision in line with the child's concerns could only be taken after the child had been given the opportunity to disclose its personal relations with the other family members during the proceedings. 45. The Federal Constitutional Court pointed out that it was questionable in the case at hand whether the proceedings had satisfied these requirements since the lower courts had not given any convincing reasons why the children had not been heard. However, there was no need to take a decision in this respect because in any event the applicant could not claim to have suffered a particularly serious disadvantage since his complaint did not have any prospect of success even if remitted to the lower courts. As had been established in the decision of the District Court of 29 March 2006 in the proceedings instituted subsequently under file no. 5 F 271/04 regarding the applicant's contact rights, it had been difficult for years to regulate the father's contact rights with his children. At a hearing that had taken place in those proceedings it had transpired that the children were rather opposed to an extension of the applicant's contact rights. (c) The contact rights proceedings (file no. 5 F 272/98 and file no. 5 F 271/04) 46. By a decision of 4 January 2008, served on the applicant on 12 January 2008, the Federal Constitutional Court (file no. 1 BvR 1544/07) declined to consider his constitutional complaint regarding the proceedings for the regulation of his contact rights, instituted under file no. 5 F 272/98 and file no. 5 F 271/04.

C. The proceedings instituted on behalf of the applicant's children

On 15 March 2001 the applicant lodged a separate application with the Emmerich District Court on behalf of and in the name of his children for the regulation of the children's contact rights with respect to their father. On 4 July 2001 (file no. 5 F 134/01) the District Court dismissed his request as inadmissible on the ground that the determination of contact arrangements between the father and the children was already the subject of the still pending proceedings under file no. 5 F 272/98.

On 24 July 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint against that decision, providing a statement of the grounds of appeal on 10 August 2001. On 10 September 2001 he was informed by the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal that there existed doubts as to his entitlement to represent his children in the proceedings. On 7 November 2001 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as inadmissible. It found that the applicant could not represent the children in the proceedings since the power of representation was part of the right to custody which in proceedings no. 5 F 283/98 had been transferred solely to the mother, with the exception of the right to determine the children's place of residence.

By written submissions dated 11 December 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court against the decisions of the District Court and Court of Appeal and further argued that Article 1671 of the German Civil Code in its current version was unconstitutional. By a decision of 7 December 2005, served on the applicant on 20 December 2005, the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the applicant's constitutional complaint (File no. 1 BvR 2127/01).

D. The proceedings regarding the grandparents' contact rights

On 9 January 2001 the applicant requested the District Court to prohibit any contact by the grandparents with his children and alternatively to grant them contact only in the presence of a third person to be determined by the children's guardian. The applicant argued that the grandparents were setting the children against him and obstructing the exercise of his contact rights.

The applicant had already lodged a similar application in previous proceedings (5 F 155/99), which had been rejected by a decision of the District Court dated 9 November 2000.

On 12 February 2001 the District Court granted the applicant's request for legal aid for the alternative motion but rejected it for his main application since the latter was devoid of any prospect of success. The Court held that even though the grandparents might have a negative impact on the children's relations with their father, a complete ban on their contact with the children was neither practicable, owing to the proximity of their respective homes, nor in the children's interest, given the close relations between them and their grandparents.

On 22 March 2001 the parties were heard by the District Court, and on 5 April 2001 the court rejected the application. It found that preventing contact between the children and their grandparents could in no way help to ensure regular contact between the applicant and his children but would to the contrary further obstruct such an aim. In view of the close relationship between the mother, children and the grandparents and the fact that the grandparents assumed a considerable part of the child care, a prohibition of contact with the children was neither practicable nor in the children's best interest.

Following an appeal lodged by the applicant on 10 May 2002, a hearing took place before Düsseldorf Court of Appeal. By a decision of 17 May 2002 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's request for legal aid for the appellate proceedings since his appeal was devoid of any prospect of success. On 3 June 2002 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal since there was nothing to establish that contact with their grandparents was contrary to the children's wellbeing and there was no evidence that the grandparents had obstructed contact between the children and their father or had damaged their relationship.

On 17 October 2006 (1 BvR 1194/02) the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the applicant's constitutional complaint that his parental rights had been violated by the decisions of the lower courts. It held that the right to determine the contact of the children with third persons was part of the right of custody which had been awarded solely to the mother. The applicant's parental rights could therefore not be directly affected by the contact of his children with third persons and his own contact rights could be affected only indirectly. However, a limitation on the contact rights of third persons with the children could not entail any binding regulation of the applicant's contact with his children and he could thus not claim that his own rights were affected.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e1
001-102918_a11_em1
CODE
DIRECT
21980/06
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e2
001-102918_a11_em2
CODE
DIRECT
26944/07
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e3
001-102918_a11_em3
CODE
DIRECT
36948/08
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-102918_a11_e4
001-102918_a11_em4
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Republic of Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e5
001-102918_a11_em5
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e6
001-102918_a11_em6
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Iradj Kuhlen-Rafsandjani
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e7
001-102918_a11_em7
DATETIME
QUASI
29 May 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e8
001-102918_a11_em8
DATETIME
QUASI
6 June 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e9
001-102918_a11_em9
DATETIME
QUASI
11 July 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e10
001-102918_a11_em10
PERSON
QUASI
Ms C. Krüger-Rauch
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-102918_a11_e11
001-102918_a11_em11
LOC
NO_MASK
Schifferstadt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e4
001-102918_a11_em12
ORG
NO_MASK
001-102918_a11_em4
German Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e12
001-102918_a11_em13
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs A. Wittling-Vogel
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e13
001-102918_a11_em14
ORG
NO_MASK
001-102918_a11_em15
Ministerialdirigentin
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e13
001-102918_a11_em15
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Ministry of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e14
001-102918_a11_em16
DATETIME
QUASI
9 December 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e15
001-102918_a11_em17
DATETIME
QUASI
1939
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e16
001-102918_a11_em18
LOC
QUASI
Heidelberg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e17
001-102918_a11_em19
DATETIME
QUASI
1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e18
001-102918_a11_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
December 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e19
001-102918_a11_em21
DATETIME
QUASI
May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e20
001-102918_a11_em22
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e21
001-102918_a11_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
July 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e22
001-102918_a11_em24
DATETIME
QUASI
beginning of 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e16
001-102918_a11_em25
LOC
QUASI
Heidelberg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e23
001-102918_a11_em26
LOC
QUASI
Rees
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e24
001-102918_a11_em27
LOC
QUASI
North Rhine-Westphalia
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-102918_a11_e25
001-102918_a11_em28
MISC
NO_MASK
Umgangsrecht
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e26
001-102918_a11_em29
ORG
QUASI
Emmerich District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e27
001-102918_a11_em30
DATETIME
QUASI
March 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e28
001-102918_a11_em31
DATETIME
QUASI
23 July 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e29
001-102918_a11_em32
CODE
QUASI
5 F 105/98
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e30
001-102918_a11_em33
DATETIME
NO_MASK
every second
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e31
001-102918_a11_em34
DATETIME
NO_MASK
6 p.m. Friday
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e32
001-102918_a11_em35
DATETIME
NO_MASK
6 p.m. Sunday
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-102918_a11_e33
001-102918_a11_em36
MISC
NO_MASK
Folgesachen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e34
001-102918_a11_em37
DATETIME
QUASI
29 November 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e35
001-102918_a11_em38
DATETIME
QUASI
9 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e36
001-102918_a11_em39
DATETIME
QUASI
31 August 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e26
001-102918_a11_em40
ORG
QUASI
Emmerich District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e28
001-102918_a11_em41
DATETIME
QUASI
23 July 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e37
001-102918_a11_em42
CODE
QUASI
5 F 272/98
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e38
001-102918_a11_em43
CODE
QUASI
5 F 283/98
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e39
001-102918_a11_em44
DATETIME
QUASI
29 September 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e40
001-102918_a11_em45
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e26
001-102918_a11_em46
ORG
QUASI
Emmerich District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e41
001-102918_a11_em47
CODE
QUASI
5 F 18/99
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e42
001-102918_a11_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
22 April 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e43
001-102918_a11_em49
ORG
QUASI
Kleve child protection agency
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-102918_a11_e43
001-102918_a11_em50
ORG
QUASI
001-102918_a11_em49
Kinderschutzbund
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e44
001-102918_a11_em51
DATETIME
QUASI
28 April 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em52
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e43
001-102918_a11_em53
ORG
QUASI
Kleve child protection agency
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e42
001-102918_a11_em54
DATETIME
QUASI
22 April 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e46
001-102918_a11_em55
DATETIME
QUASI
12 August 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em56
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e28
001-102918_a11_em57
DATETIME
QUASI
23 July 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e47
001-102918_a11_em58
DATETIME
NO_MASK
August
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e48
001-102918_a11_em59
DATETIME
QUASI
September 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e49
001-102918_a11_em60
DATETIME
QUASI
28 September 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e50
001-102918_a11_em61
DATETIME
QUASI
15 October 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e43
001-102918_a11_em62
ORG
QUASI
Kleve child protection agency
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e51
001-102918_a11_em63
DATETIME
NO_MASK
year 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e52
001-102918_a11_em64
DATETIME
QUASI
31 August 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-102918_a11_e53
001-102918_a11_em65
MISC
NO_MASK
Aufenthaltsbestimmungsrecht
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e54
001-102918_a11_em66
ORG
QUASI
Rees Youth Welfare Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-102918_a11_e54
001-102918_a11_em67
ORG
QUASI
001-102918_a11_em66
Jugendamt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e55
001-102918_a11_em68
DATETIME
NO_MASK
Saturday
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e56
001-102918_a11_em69
DATETIME
NO_MASK
Sunday
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e57
001-102918_a11_em70
DATETIME
QUASI
10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-102918_a11_e23
001-102918_a11_em71
LOC
QUASI
Rees
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e16
001-102918_a11_em72
LOC
QUASI
Heidelberg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e58
001-102918_a11_em73
DATETIME
QUASI
19 October 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em74
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e43
001-102918_a11_em75
ORG
QUASI
Kleve child protection agency
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e59
001-102918_a11_em76
MISC
NO_MASK
001-102918_a11_em77
children's curator ad litem
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-102918_a11_e59
001-102918_a11_em77
MISC
NO_MASK
Verfahrenspfleger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e60
001-102918_a11_em78
DATETIME
QUASI
18 October 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e61
001-102918_a11_em79
DATETIME
QUASI
9 November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em80
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em81
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em82
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e62
001-102918_a11_em83
ORG
QUASI
Kleve District Youth Welfare Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-102918_a11_e63
001-102918_a11_em84
MISC
NO_MASK
Aufenthaltsbestimmungsrechtspfleger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em85
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e64
001-102918_a11_em86
DATETIME
QUASI
13 December 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e65
001-102918_a11_em87
DATETIME
QUASI
17 May 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em88
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em89
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e67
001-102918_a11_em90
DATETIME
QUASI
21 May 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em91
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em92
ORG
NO_MASK
001-102918_a11_em89
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e62
001-102918_a11_em93
ORG
QUASI
Kleve District Youth Welfare Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em94
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em95
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e68
001-102918_a11_em96
DATETIME
QUASI
18 June 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em97
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e69
001-102918_a11_em98
DATETIME
QUASI
20 July 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em99
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e70
001-102918_a11_em100
DATETIME
QUASI
12 July 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em101
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e71
001-102918_a11_em102
DATETIME
QUASI
18 July 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e72
001-102918_a11_em103
DATETIME
QUASI
27 August 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em104
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em105
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e61
001-102918_a11_em106
DATETIME
QUASI
9 November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e38
001-102918_a11_em107
CODE
QUASI
5 F 283/98
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e67
001-102918_a11_em108
DATETIME
QUASI
21 May 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e73
001-102918_a11_em109
DATETIME
QUASI
4 October 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e74
001-102918_a11_em110
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e26
001-102918_a11_em111
ORG
QUASI
Emmerich District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e61
001-102918_a11_em112
DATETIME
QUASI
9 November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em113
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e72
001-102918_a11_em114
DATETIME
QUASI
27 August 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-102918_a11_e75
001-102918_a11_em115
MISC
NO_MASK
Verbundurteil
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e34
001-102918_a11_em116
DATETIME
QUASI
29 November 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em117
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e76
001-102918_a11_em118
DATETIME
NO_MASK
several years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e77
001-102918_a11_em119
DATETIME
QUASI
18 February 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e78
001-102918_a11_em120
DATETIME
QUASI
7 March 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e62
001-102918_a11_em121
ORG
QUASI
Kleve District Youth Welfare Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e62
001-102918_a11_em122
ORG
NO_MASK
001-102918_a11_em121
District Youth Welfare Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e79
001-102918_a11_em123
DATETIME
QUASI
10 May 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em124
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em125
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e80
001-102918_a11_em126
DATETIME
QUASI
26 June 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em127
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em128
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e34
001-102918_a11_em129
DATETIME
QUASI
29 November 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e41
001-102918_a11_em130
CODE
QUASI
5 F 18/99
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e62
001-102918_a11_em131
ORG
QUASI
Kleve District Youth Welfare Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e81
001-102918_a11_em132
DATETIME
QUASI
30 July 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em133
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e34
001-102918_a11_em134
DATETIME
QUASI
29 November 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em135
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em136
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em137
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e37
001-102918_a11_em138
CODE
QUASI
5 F 272/98
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e82
001-102918_a11_em139
DATETIME
QUASI
5 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-102918_a11_e83
001-102918_a11_em140
MISC
NO_MASK
Prozessvergleich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e84
001-102918_a11_em141
DATETIME
NO_MASK
Saturdays
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e85
001-102918_a11_em142
DATETIME
NO_MASK
Sundays
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e86
001-102918_a11_em143
DATETIME
QUASI
2 p.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e87
001-102918_a11_em144
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e88
001-102918_a11_em145
DATETIME
NO_MASK
holidays
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e89
001-102918_a11_em146
MISC
QUASI
Iranian public holidays
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e90
001-102918_a11_em147
DATETIME
QUASI
10 July 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e91
001-102918_a11_em148
ORG
QUASI
Kleve Youth Welfare Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e92
001-102918_a11_em149
DATETIME
QUASI
28 August 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em150
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e82
001-102918_a11_em151
DATETIME
QUASI
5 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e93
001-102918_a11_em152
DATETIME
QUASI
2 April 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em153
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e94
001-102918_a11_em154
DATETIME
QUASI
4 October 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e26
001-102918_a11_em155
ORG
QUASI
Emmerich District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e16
001-102918_a11_em156
LOC
QUASI
Heidelberg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e95
001-102918_a11_em157
DATETIME
NO_MASK
Easter
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e96
001-102918_a11_em158
DATETIME
NO_MASK
Christmas holidays
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e97
001-102918_a11_em159
CODE
QUASI
5 F 271/04
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e98
001-102918_a11_em160
DATETIME
QUASI
20 January 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em161
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e99
001-102918_a11_em162
DATETIME
QUASI
11 March 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e100
001-102918_a11_em163
DATETIME
QUASI
2 May 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em164
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e84
001-102918_a11_em165
DATETIME
NO_MASK
Saturdays
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e85
001-102918_a11_em166
DATETIME
NO_MASK
Sundays
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e101
001-102918_a11_em167
DATETIME
QUASI
10.00 a.m. to 6 p.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e102
001-102918_a11_em168
DATETIME
QUASI
31 August 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em169
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e103
001-102918_a11_em170
DATETIME
NO_MASK
February 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e104
001-102918_a11_em171
DATETIME
NO_MASK
end of November 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e105
001-102918_a11_em172
DATETIME
QUASI
10 March 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e106
001-102918_a11_em173
DATETIME
QUASI
29 March 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em174
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e82
001-102918_a11_em175
DATETIME
QUASI
5 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e107
001-102918_a11_em176
DATETIME
NO_MASK
every second weekend
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e84
001-102918_a11_em177
DATETIME
NO_MASK
Saturdays
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e85
001-102918_a11_em178
DATETIME
NO_MASK
Sundays
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e101
001-102918_a11_em179
DATETIME
QUASI
10.00 a.m. to 6 p.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e99
001-102918_a11_em180
DATETIME
QUASI
11 March 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e108
001-102918_a11_em181
DATETIME
QUASI
10 April 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e109
001-102918_a11_em182
DATETIME
QUASI
9 May 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em183
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e110
001-102918_a11_em184
DATETIME
QUASI
2 March 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e111
001-102918_a11_em185
DATETIME
QUASI
20 March 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em186
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em187
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e112
001-102918_a11_em188
DATETIME
QUASI
15 May 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em189
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e113
001-102918_a11_em190
DATETIME
QUASI
12 June 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e26
001-102918_a11_em191
ORG
QUASI
Emmerich District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e106
001-102918_a11_em192
DATETIME
QUASI
29 March 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em193
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e111
001-102918_a11_em194
DATETIME
QUASI
20 March 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e112
001-102918_a11_em195
DATETIME
QUASI
15 May 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e97
001-102918_a11_em196
CODE
QUASI
5 F 271/04
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e82
001-102918_a11_em197
DATETIME
QUASI
5 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e37
001-102918_a11_em198
CODE
QUASI
5 F 272/98
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em199
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e93
001-102918_a11_em200
DATETIME
QUASI
2 April 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e114
001-102918_a11_em201
DATETIME
NO_MASK
February 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e115
001-102918_a11_em202
DATETIME
NO_MASK
summer holidays
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e16
001-102918_a11_em203
LOC
QUASI
Heidelberg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e116
001-102918_a11_em204
DATETIME
NO_MASK
23 July
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e117
001-102918_a11_em205
DATETIME
QUASI
3 August 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e118
001-102918_a11_em206
CODE
QUASI
5 F 33/08
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e119
001-102918_a11_em207
DATETIME
QUASI
21 May 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e120
001-102918_a11_em208
DATETIME
QUASI
6 June 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em209
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e121
001-102918_a11_em210
DATETIME
QUASI
19 August 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em211
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e74
001-102918_a11_em212
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e38
001-102918_a11_em213
CODE
QUASI
5 F 283/98
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e122
001-102918_a11_em214
DATETIME
QUASI
7 December 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e74
001-102918_a11_em215
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e123
001-102918_a11_em216
CODE
QUASI
1 BvR 1716/01
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e38
001-102918_a11_em217
CODE
QUASI
5 F 283/98
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e124
001-102918_a11_em218
DATETIME
QUASI
20 December 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e41
001-102918_a11_em219
CODE
QUASI
5 F 18/99
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e125
001-102918_a11_em220
DATETIME
QUASI
17 October 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e126
001-102918_a11_em221
CODE
QUASI
1 BvR 1400/02
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e74
001-102918_a11_em222
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e74
001-102918_a11_em223
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e127
001-102918_a11_em224
DATETIME
QUASI
9 December 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e74
001-102918_a11_em225
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e128
001-102918_a11_em226
MISC
NO_MASK
Non-Contentious Proceedings
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e128
001-102918_a11_em227
MISC
NO_MASK
001-102918_a11_em226
Gesetz über die Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e74
001-102918_a11_em228
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em229
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e106
001-102918_a11_em230
DATETIME
QUASI
29 March 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e97
001-102918_a11_em231
CODE
QUASI
5 F 271/04
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e129
001-102918_a11_em232
DATETIME
NO_MASK
years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e37
001-102918_a11_em233
CODE
QUASI
5 F 272/98
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e97
001-102918_a11_em234
CODE
QUASI
5 F 271/04
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e130
001-102918_a11_em235
DATETIME
QUASI
4 January 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e131
001-102918_a11_em236
DATETIME
QUASI
12 January 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e74
001-102918_a11_em237
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e132
001-102918_a11_em238
CODE
QUASI
1 BvR 1544/07
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e37
001-102918_a11_em239
CODE
QUASI
5 F 272/98
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e97
001-102918_a11_em240
CODE
QUASI
5 F 271/04
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e133
001-102918_a11_em241
DATETIME
QUASI
15 March 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e26
001-102918_a11_em242
ORG
QUASI
Emmerich District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e134
001-102918_a11_em243
DATETIME
QUASI
4 July 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e135
001-102918_a11_em244
CODE
QUASI
5 F 134/01
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em245
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e37
001-102918_a11_em246
CODE
QUASI
5 F 272/98
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e136
001-102918_a11_em247
DATETIME
QUASI
24 July 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e137
001-102918_a11_em248
DATETIME
QUASI
10 August 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e138
001-102918_a11_em249
DATETIME
QUASI
10 September 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em250
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e139
001-102918_a11_em251
DATETIME
QUASI
7 November 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em252
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e38
001-102918_a11_em253
CODE
QUASI
5 F 283/98
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e140
001-102918_a11_em254
DATETIME
QUASI
11 December 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e74
001-102918_a11_em255
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em256
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em257
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e5
001-102918_a11_em258
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e122
001-102918_a11_em259
DATETIME
QUASI
7 December 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e124
001-102918_a11_em260
DATETIME
QUASI
20 December 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e74
001-102918_a11_em261
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e141
001-102918_a11_em262
CODE
QUASI
1 BvR 2127/01
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e142
001-102918_a11_em263
DATETIME
QUASI
9 January 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em264
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e143
001-102918_a11_em265
CODE
QUASI
5 F 155/99
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em266
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e61
001-102918_a11_em267
DATETIME
QUASI
9 November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e144
001-102918_a11_em268
DATETIME
QUASI
12 February 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em269
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e145
001-102918_a11_em270
DATETIME
QUASI
22 March 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e45
001-102918_a11_em271
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e146
001-102918_a11_em272
DATETIME
QUASI
5 April 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e79
001-102918_a11_em273
DATETIME
QUASI
10 May 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em274
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e147
001-102918_a11_em275
DATETIME
QUASI
17 May 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em276
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e148
001-102918_a11_em277
DATETIME
QUASI
3 June 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e66
001-102918_a11_em278
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e125
001-102918_a11_em279
DATETIME
QUASI
17 October 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-102918_a11_e149
001-102918_a11_em280
CODE
QUASI
1 BvR 1194/02
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-102918_a11_e74
001-102918_a11_em281
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
Iradj Kuhlen-Rafsandjani
DEU
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Iradj Kuhlen-Rafsandjani