PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 35637/03) against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Austrian national, Mr Gerald Sporer (“the applicant”), on 12 November 2003.

The applicant was represented by Mrs M. Speer, a lawyer practising in Mattighofen. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador H. Tichy, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs.

The applicant alleged that the relevant provisions of the Civil Code relating to custody and their application by the courts had discriminated against him as the father of a child born out of wedlock. Furthermore, he alleged that the District Court had failed to hold a hearing to discuss the decisive expert opinion and, more generally, that it had failed to hear him in person.

By a decision of 25 September 2008 the Court declared the application admissible.

Neither party filed further observations on the merits of the case.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Schalchen.

The applicant’s son K. was born out of wedlock on 26 May 2000. The child was given the applicant’s family name by decision of the Braunau District Administrative Authority of 29 June 2000.

At that time K.’s mother was living as a tenant in the applicant’s house, in a separate apartment. The applicant was sharing an apartment with his long-term partner, U., who later became his wife, and their son D. aged six at that time. During K.’s first year the applicant took parental leave and took care of him together with U. Subsequently, K.’s mother took parental leave.

In early January 2002 K.’s mother moved out of the applicant’s house.

On 28 January 2002 the applicant asked the Mattighofen District Court (Bezirksgericht) to transfer sole custody of K. to him under Article 176 of the Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch). He submitted in particular that he and U. had mainly taken care of K. and that the child’s mother was not capable of doing so. The latter opposed the transfer of custody. At that stage and at all subsequent stages of the proceedings the applicant was assisted by counsel.

By letter of 12 February 2002 the Youth Office (Jugendamt), which had been following the case since summer 2001, expressed the view that both parents were capable of exercising custody.

On 12 March 2002 the applicant and K.’s mother appeared before the District Court and were heard by the judge.

According to the minutes, the applicant requested that the opinion of an expert in child psychology be taken. K.’s mother agreed to that request. The court appointed Dr J.-W., an expert in child psychology, and ordered him to submit an opinion on whether the interests of the child were better served by leaving sole custody with the mother or by awarding it to the applicant. The judge then proceeded to discuss the factual and legal issues with the parties. The parties then concluded an agreement to the effect that, pending a decision on custody, K. would spend three days with his mother and three days with the applicant.

The expert, Dr J.-W., submitted his opinion to the Court on 17 April 2002. The opinion was based on interviews which the expert had conducted with K.’s mother and the applicant and his partner. He had also paid a visit to the applicant’s home during which he had observed how the applicant and the other members of his family interacted with K. The expert opinion was served on the applicant.

On 8 July 2002 the District Court held a hearing in the presence of the applicant, his counsel, K.’s mother, Dr J.-W. and a representative of the Youth Office.

According to the minutes, the contents of the file were read out. Subsequently, Dr J.-W.’s opinion was discussed. In the course of the hearing Dr J.-W. supplemented his opinion. He expressed the view that K.’s mother was very immature and not yet capable of taking care of him and recommended the transfer of sole custody to the applicant. The representative of the Youth Office opposed the view that K.’s mother was not capable of raising the child. None of the parties made further submissions.

On the following day, that is, on 9 July 2002, the District Court ordered a second expert in child psychology, Dr R., to submit an opinion on whether or not K.’s mother was capable of taking care of him. In her opinion of 15 July 2002, Dr R. came to the conclusion that K.’s mother was sufficiently mature, did not show any emotional instability and was capable of taking care of him. A copy of this expert opinion was served on the applicant.

In addition the District Court requested the Youth Office to prepare a report. A representative of the Youth Office visited K. and his mother at their home and as a result of that visit concluded that she was able to exercise custody.

On 29 July and 13 August 2002 the applicant requested that a decisive expert opinion (Obergutachten) be commissioned. The motion contained comprehensive submissions on K.’s mother’s alleged incapacity to raise him.

The District Court ordered a third expert, Dr B., to submit a decisive expert opinion on the question whether K.’s mother was capable of exercising custody.

Both the applicant and K.’s mother made further written submissions. Each of them forwarded detailed arguments as to why the other parent was not an appropriate person to take care of K.

On 14 October 2002 Dr B. submitted his expert opinion. Having interviewed the applicant and K.’s mother, he found that both parents were in principle capable of taking care of K. The mother had some issues as regards her own personality development and a somewhat limited capacity to cope with everyday life. The applicant had a tendency to dominate and had given reason to fear that, if custody was awarded to him, he would try to curtail the mother’s access rights. The applicant could provide a more stable environment and a more coherent style of upbringing. However, K.’s best interests would not be manifestly endangered if custody remained with his mother. It was recommended that the applicant be given extensive access rights, in that K. should stay with him from Friday to Sunday every second weekend, spend two weeks with him in summer and one week during the Christmas period.

A copy of Dr B.’s expert opinion was served on the applicant, and he was given 14 days to submit comments. Within that time-limit, the applicant requested that the expert opinion be discussed at a hearing. He did not make any comments in writing.

Without holding a further hearing, the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for sole custody of K. to be transferred to him by decision of 4 December 2002.

The District Court noted that under Article 166 of the Civil Code the mother of a child born out of wedlock had sole custody. A transfer of custody was only to be ordered if the child’s best interests were at risk. In the present case the applicant would have had to prove that K.’s mother was unable to take care of him. While the first expert, Mr J.-W., had come to the conclusion that this was the case, the second expert, Ms R., had reached the opposite conclusion. Finally, the decisive expert opinion by Mr B. had found it established that K.’s mother was capable of taking care of him. Having regard to the second and third expert opinions and to the view expressed by the Youth Office, it had been established that K.’s mother was able to exercise custody and the applicant had failed to adduce proof to the contrary.

Furthermore, the District Court noted that it had not considered it necessary to hold a hearing to discuss the decisive expert opinion, since it found that opinion coherent and convincing. The factual and legal issues of the case had therefore been sufficiently clarified and a hearing would only have delayed the proceedings. It followed that the applicant’s further requests for the taking of evidence had to be dismissed.

Finally, the court ruled that its decision was immediately enforceable with the consequence that the agreement of 12 March 2002 was no longer effective.

The applicant appealed. He complained about a number of procedural shortcomings. He alleged, inter alia, that the District Court had failed to hold a hearing for the purpose of discussing Dr B.’s expert opinion, and that it had not heard him in person.

In addition, the applicant contended that the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, namely, Articles 166 and 176, were discriminatory and suggested that the appellate court request the Constitutional Court to rule on their constitutionality. Since K. had been born out of wedlock, his mother had sole custody of him and he, as the child’s father, could only be awarded custody if the mother put the child’s well-being at risk. In the case of a child born in wedlock the parents had joint custody and retained it upon divorce or separation unless the child’s best interests required that sole custody be awarded to one of them. The application of different criteria when the parents of a child born out of wedlock separated lacked reasonable justification.

On 24 February 2003 the Ried Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

The Regional Court found that the proceedings before the District Court had not suffered from any procedural defects. In non-contentious proceedings it was not always required to question the parties at a hearing. A hearing had been held on 8 July 2002 in the presence of the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant had had the opportunity to file written submissions, of which he had made ample use. He had also been interviewed by the experts. A further hearing for the purpose of discussing the decisive expert opinion of Dr B. would only have been required had there been substantial doubts as to its correctness.

Moreover, the Regional Court did not see any reason to request the Constitutional Court to rule on the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the Civil Code. It noted that Article 167 of the Civil Code allowed life-companions to request joint custody. The applicant had not claimed to have cohabited with K.’s mother. On the contrary he had co‑habited with another woman, U., who had meanwhile become his wife.

A distinction between children born in wedlock and children born out of wedlock was not discriminatory as long as it was objectively justified. The rule contained in Article 176 of the Civil Code that in the case of a child born out of wedlock (unless the parents had requested joint custody under Article 167) custody was only to be transferred if the mother put the child’s well-being at risk, was based on the consideration that in the majority of cases of children born out of wedlock it was actually the mother who took care of the child.

The applicant filed an extraordinary appeal on points of law. He repeated his complaints about the alleged procedural shortcomings. In particular, he submitted that the court had neither held a hearing to discuss the decisive expert opinion of Dr B. nor given him an opportunity to comment in writing. The applicant also reiterated his request for the case to be submitted to the Constitutional Court.

On 26 June 2003 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) dismissed the applicant’s extraordinary appeal on points of law. It noted that the courts were not obliged to hold hearings in custody proceedings. The applicant had been given the opportunity to comment on the expert opinion at issue. Moreover, the courts had correctly applied Article 176 of the Civil Code. It had not been shown that the mother put K.’s well-being at risk.

To date, K.’s mother continues to have sole custody of him while the applicant has a right of access under the terms recommended by the courts in the custody proceedings.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND COMPARATIVE LAW

A. Relevant domestic law

The relevant provisions of the Civil Code in the version in force at the material time read as follows: Article 144 “The parents shall care for and raise the minor child, manage its assets and represent it in these, as well as in all other matters; care, upbringing and asset management also include representing the child in these matters before the law [in court]. The parents shall proceed on a consensual basis when complying with these obligations and exercising these rights.” Article 166 “The mother shall have sole custody of an illegitimate child. Moreover, unless the present provisions stipulate otherwise, the provisions on legitimate children regarding maintenance and custody shall also apply to illegitimate children.” Article 167 “(1) Whenever the parents of a child live in a common household, they may agree that both parents will have custody in the future. The court shall uphold the agreement if it serves the interests of the child. If one parent leaves the common household, other than on a temporary basis, § 177 and § 177a shall be applied accordingly. (2) Whenever the parents do not live in a common household, they can agree that the father shall also have full custodial powers or regarding specific matters in the future, if they present such an agreement to the court indicating the parent with which the child is to stay primarily. If the child stays primarily in the household of the father, the latter must also be assigned full custody. The court shall uphold the agreement if it serves the interests of the child.”

This version of Article 167 of the Civil Code was introduced by the 2001 Law Amending Child Custody Law, which entered into force on 1 July 2001. Before that date parents of an illegitimate child could only agree on exercising custody jointly if they were living in a common household. Article 176 “(1) Whenever the parents put the well-being of a minor child at risk, on account of their conduct, the court will take the steps necessary to secure the interests of the child, irrespective of which party has applied to the court. In particular, the court may withdraw all or part of the custodial rights in respect of the child, ...” Article 177 “(1) If the marriage of the parents of a minor legitimate child is dissolved or annulled, the custodial rights of both parents remain intact. However, they may present an agreement to the court – even modifying an existing agreement – regarding custodial responsibility. In this connection it may be agreed that one parent alone or both parents shall have custody. Where both parents have custodial powers, those of one parent may be limited to specific matters. (2) Where both parents have custody, they must submit an agreement to the court regarding the parent with whom the child is to stay primarily. This parent must always be put in charge of all custodial matters. (3) The court must approve the agreement of the parents, if it serves the interests of the child.” Article 177a “(1) If an agreement in accordance with Article 177 on the main domicile of the child or on custodial powers is not reached within a reasonable period after a marriage is dissolved or annulled, or if it is incompatible with the interests of the child, the court must decide which parent shall henceforth have sole custody, if all attempts to reach an amicable solution fail. (2) If both parents have custody under Article 177 after their marriage has been dissolved or annulled, and if one parent applies for the withdrawal of that custody, the court must decide which parent shall have sole custody, if all attempts to reach an amicable solution fail.” Article 177b “The above provisions shall also be applied if the parents of a minor legitimate child live apart, other than on a temporary basis. However, in such a case the court shall decide on custody only upon application by a parent.”

B. Relevant comparative law

A recent case concerning similar complaints (Zaunegger v. Germany, no. 22028/04, §§ 22-27, 3 December 2009) contains the following summary of comparative law: “22. A survey on comparative law taking into account the national laws of a selection of Member States of the Council of Europe shows that basically all Member States included in the survey provide for joint parental authority by unmarried parents over their children born out of wedlock. The main elements referred to as a basis for allowing joint parental authority for unmarried parents are the establishment of paternity and the parents’ agreement to exercise joint authority.

However, the solutions in the Member States vary as regards the attribution of joint parental authority for children born out of wedlock in the event no agreement between the parents can be reached in this respect.

In only a limited number of countries do the statutory regulations explicitly address this issue. In a few countries, such as Austria, Norway and Serbia, the national law stipulates that the exercise of joint parental authority of unmarried parents requires the consent of both parents and thus implies that the non-consenting parent has a right of veto. By contrast, the laws in Hungary, Ireland and Monaco appear to provide for a joint exercise of parental authority even without the parents’ consent.

In some Member States such as the Czech Republic and Luxembourg, while the law itself is not clear on the subject, the domestic courts have interpreted the applicable provisions so as to allow joint parental authority only with the consent of the parents, whereas for example the Dutch Supreme Court has held that the national law has to be interpreted so as to enable the father of a child born out of wedlock to request joint parental authority with the mother even though the latter disagrees. A similar approach seems to be followed in Spain.

With the exception of the few countries where a right of veto of one parent is explicitly stipulated in national law, the most common solution put forward by national legislations is that a court decides on the outcome of a corresponding dispute between the parents at the request of one of the parents bearing in mind the best interests of the child. All Member States emphasise the importance of the child’s best interest in decisions regarding the attribution of custody. In determining the child’s best interest in this connection domestic courts commonly take into consideration the positions of the parents and the child and the particular circumstances of the case, as regards, inter alia, the demonstrable interest in and commitment to the child by the respective parent.

In summary, ... , the survey confirms that while different approaches exist in the Member States, the majority provide for paternal participation in custody if the parents were not married to each other, either irrespective of the mother’s will or at least by court order following an evaluation of the child’s interests.”
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-103234_a11_e1
001-103234_a11_em1
CODE
DIRECT
35637/03
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-103234_a11_e2
001-103234_a11_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Republic of Austria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e3
001-103234_a11_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Austrian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e4
001-103234_a11_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Gerald Sporer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e5
001-103234_a11_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
12 November 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e6
001-103234_a11_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs M. Speer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e7
001-103234_a11_em7
LOC
NO_MASK
Mattighofen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e2
001-103234_a11_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
001-103234_a11_em2
Austrian Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e8
001-103234_a11_em9
PERSON
QUASI
H. Tichy
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e9
001-103234_a11_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
International Law Department
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e10
001-103234_a11_em11
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e11
001-103234_a11_em12
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e12
001-103234_a11_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
25 September 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e13
001-103234_a11_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
1976
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e14
001-103234_a11_em15
LOC
QUASI
Schalchen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em16
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e16
001-103234_a11_em17
DATETIME
QUASI
26 May 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e17
001-103234_a11_em18
ORG
QUASI
Braunau District Administrative Authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-103234_a11_e18
001-103234_a11_em19
DATETIME
QUASI
29 June 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em20
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-103234_a11_e19
001-103234_a11_em21
PERSON
NO_MASK
U.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-103234_a11_e20
001-103234_a11_em22
PERSON
NO_MASK
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em23
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em24
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e21
001-103234_a11_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
early January 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em26
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e22
001-103234_a11_em27
DATETIME
QUASI
28 January 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e23
001-103234_a11_em28
ORG
QUASI
Mattighofen District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-103234_a11_e24
001-103234_a11_em29
ORG
NO_MASK
Bezirksgericht
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em30
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e19
001-103234_a11_em31
PERSON
NO_MASK
U.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em32
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e25
001-103234_a11_em33
DATETIME
QUASI
12 February 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e26
001-103234_a11_em34
ORG
NO_MASK
Youth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-103234_a11_e27
001-103234_a11_em35
ORG
NO_MASK
Jugendamt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e28
001-103234_a11_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
summer 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e29
001-103234_a11_em37
DATETIME
QUASI
12 March 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em38
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e11
001-103234_a11_em39
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em40
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-103234_a11_e30
001-103234_a11_em41
PERSON
NO_MASK
Dr J.-W.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em42
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e31
001-103234_a11_em43
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e31
001-103234_a11_em44
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e30
001-103234_a11_em45
PERSON
NO_MASK
Dr J.-W.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e32
001-103234_a11_em46
DATETIME
QUASI
17 April 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em47
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em48
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e33
001-103234_a11_em49
DATETIME
QUASI
8 July 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e11
001-103234_a11_em50
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em51
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e30
001-103234_a11_em52
PERSON
NO_MASK
Dr J.-W.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e26
001-103234_a11_em53
ORG
NO_MASK
Youth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e30
001-103234_a11_em54
PERSON
NO_MASK
Dr J.-W.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e30
001-103234_a11_em55
PERSON
NO_MASK
Dr J.-W.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em56
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e26
001-103234_a11_em57
ORG
NO_MASK
Youth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em58
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e34
001-103234_a11_em59
DATETIME
NO_MASK
following day
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e35
001-103234_a11_em60
DATETIME
QUASI
9 July 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e11
001-103234_a11_em61
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e36
001-103234_a11_em62
PERSON
NO_MASK
Dr R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em63
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e37
001-103234_a11_em64
DATETIME
QUASI
15 July 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e36
001-103234_a11_em65
PERSON
NO_MASK
Dr R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em66
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e11
001-103234_a11_em67
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e26
001-103234_a11_em68
ORG
NO_MASK
Youth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e26
001-103234_a11_em69
ORG
NO_MASK
Youth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em70
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e38
001-103234_a11_em71
DATETIME
NO_MASK
29 July
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e39
001-103234_a11_em72
DATETIME
QUASI
13 August 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em73
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e11
001-103234_a11_em74
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e40
001-103234_a11_em75
PERSON
NO_MASK
Dr B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em76
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em77
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em78
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e41
001-103234_a11_em79
DATETIME
QUASI
14 October 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e40
001-103234_a11_em80
PERSON
NO_MASK
Dr B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em81
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em82
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em83
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em84
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e42
001-103234_a11_em85
DATETIME
NO_MASK
two weeks
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e43
001-103234_a11_em86
DATETIME
NO_MASK
summer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e44
001-103234_a11_em87
DATETIME
NO_MASK
one week
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e45
001-103234_a11_em88
DATETIME
NO_MASK
Christmas period
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-103234_a11_e40
001-103234_a11_em89
PERSON
NO_MASK
Dr B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e46
001-103234_a11_em90
DATETIME
NO_MASK
14 days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e11
001-103234_a11_em91
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em92
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e47
001-103234_a11_em93
DATETIME
QUASI
4 December 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e11
001-103234_a11_em94
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em95
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-103234_a11_e48
001-103234_a11_em96
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr J.-W.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e49
001-103234_a11_em97
PERSON
NO_MASK
Ms R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e50
001-103234_a11_em98
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em99
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e26
001-103234_a11_em100
ORG
NO_MASK
Youth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em101
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e11
001-103234_a11_em102
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e29
001-103234_a11_em103
DATETIME
QUASI
12 March 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e11
001-103234_a11_em104
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e40
001-103234_a11_em105
PERSON
NO_MASK
Dr B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e51
001-103234_a11_em106
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em107
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e52
001-103234_a11_em108
DATETIME
QUASI
24 February 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e53
001-103234_a11_em109
ORG
QUASI
Ried Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e53
001-103234_a11_em110
ORG
NO_MASK
001-103234_a11_em109
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e11
001-103234_a11_em111
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e33
001-103234_a11_em112
DATETIME
QUASI
8 July 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e40
001-103234_a11_em113
PERSON
NO_MASK
Dr B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e53
001-103234_a11_em114
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e51
001-103234_a11_em115
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em116
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e19
001-103234_a11_em117
PERSON
NO_MASK
U.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e40
001-103234_a11_em118
PERSON
NO_MASK
Dr B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e51
001-103234_a11_em119
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e54
001-103234_a11_em120
DATETIME
QUASI
26 June 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e55
001-103234_a11_em121
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-103234_a11_e56
001-103234_a11_em122
ORG
NO_MASK
Oberster Gerichtshof
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em123
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e15
001-103234_a11_em124
PERSON
NO_MASK
K.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e57
001-103234_a11_em125
DATETIME
QUASI
1 July 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-103234_a11_e58
001-103234_a11_em126
MISC
NO_MASK
Zaunegger v. Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e59
001-103234_a11_em127
CODE
NO_MASK
22028/04
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e60
001-103234_a11_em128
DATETIME
QUASI
3 December 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e61
001-103234_a11_em129
ORG
NO_MASK
Council of Europe
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-103234_a11_e2
001-103234_a11_em130
ORG
NO_MASK
001-103234_a11_em2
Austria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-103234_a11_e62
001-103234_a11_em131
ORG
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e63
001-103234_a11_em132
ORG
NO_MASK
Serbia
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-103234_a11_e64
001-103234_a11_em133
ORG
NO_MASK
Hungary
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-103234_a11_e65
001-103234_a11_em134
ORG
NO_MASK
Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e66
001-103234_a11_em135
ORG
NO_MASK
Monaco
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e67
001-103234_a11_em136
ORG
NO_MASK
Czech Republic
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e68
001-103234_a11_em137
ORG
NO_MASK
Luxembourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-103234_a11_e69
001-103234_a11_em138
ORG
NO_MASK
Dutch Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-103234_a11_e70
001-103234_a11_em139
ORG
NO_MASK
Spain
Gerald Sporer
AUT
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Gerald Sporer