PROCEDURE

The case was referred to the Court first by the Government of the Kingdom of Spain (“the Government“) and then by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission“) on 20 and 21 February 1992, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention“). It originated in an application (no. 12952/87) against Spain lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by six Spanish nationals, Mr José María, Mr Zoilo, Mr Rafael, Mr Isidoro, Mr Alfonso and Mrs María Dolores Ruiz-Mateos, on 5 May 1987. The Government’s application referred to Article 48 (art. 48); the Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Spain recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The object of the application and the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicants stated that they wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyers who would represent them (Rule 30). The President of the Court gave the lawyers leave to use the Spanish language (Rule 27 para. 3).

The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mr J. M. Morenilla, the elected judge of Spanish nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On 27 February 1992, in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr F. Gölcüklü, Mr C. Russo, Mr N. Valticos, Mrs E. Palm, Mr R. Pekkanen, Mr F. Bigi and Mr L. Wildhaber (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43). By a letter of 26 February to the President, Mr Morenilla had stated that he wished to withdraw pursuant to Rule 24 para. 2, because he had represented the Government before the Commission as Agent. On 6 April the Government notified the Registrar of the appointment of Mr Rafael de Mendizábal Allende, judge at the Supreme Court, as ad hoc judge (Article 43 of the Convention and Rule 23) (art. 43). On 20 October the Registrar received a letter from the latter stating that he wished to withdraw “for [a] special reason“ (Rule 24 para. 3), following his appointment to the Constitutional Court. On 20 November the Government appointed a new ad hoc judge, Mr Dámaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, a judge who is on secondment as head of the private office of the President of the General Council of the Judiciary.

Mr Ryssdal had assumed the office of President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5) and had, in the meantime, through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Government, the Delegate of the Commission and the applicants on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the President’s orders and directives, the Registrar received the Government’s memorial on 6 July 1992 and the applicants’ memorial on 7 July. On 8 September the Secretary to the Commission informed him that the Delegate would submit oral observations.

On 10 April and 30 June 1992 respectively the President had authorised, under Rule 37 para. 2, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of the Portuguese Republic to submit written observations on the applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention to constitutional courts. These observations reached the registry on 10 June and 27 August.

On 23 November 1992, the date initially fixed for the hearing - which had had to be postponed because of Mr de Mendizábal Allende’s withdrawal -, the Chamber decided under Rule 51 to relinquish jurisdiction forthwith in favour of the plenary Court.

On 27 November 1992 the President directed that the oral proceedings should open on 27 January 1993. The hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on the appointed day. Mr R. Bernhardt, the Vice-President of the Court, had replaced Mr Ryssdal as President, the latter being unable to take part in the further consideration of the case (Rule 9). The Court had held a preparatory meeting before the hearing. There appeared before the Court:

for the Government (whose Agent had been authorised by the President to use the Spanish language - Rule 27 para. 2) Mr J. Borrego Borrego, Head of the Legal Department for Human Rights, Ministry of Justice, Agent, Mr J.L. Fuertes Suárez, Ministry of Justice, Counsel;

for the Commission Mr M.P. Pellonpää, Delegate;

for the applicants Mr M. García Montes, abogado, Mr S. Sánchez Pardo, abogado, Mr F. Ruhlmann, avocat, Counsel. The Court heard addresses by Mr Borrego Borrego for the Government, by Mr Pellonpää for the Commission and by Mr García Montes, Mr Sánchez Pardo and Mr Ruhlmann for the applicants, as well as their replies to its questions. The lawyers for the applicants and the Government’s representatives produced various documents.

AS TO THE FACTS

Mr José María Ruiz-Mateos, a businessman, Mr Zoilo Ruiz-Mateos, Mr Rafael Ruiz-Mateos, Mr Isidoro Ruiz-Mateos, Mr Alfonso Ruiz-Mateos and Mrs María Dolores Ruiz-Mateos are brothers and sister. They are all of Spanish nationality. In 1983 they held 100% of the shares in RUMASA S.A., the parent company of the RUMASA group, which comprised several hundred undertakings. RUMASA S.A.’s holding in these undertakings varied from one to the other.

I. THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A. The expropriation of the RUMASA group

By a legislative decree of 23 February 1983 the Government ordered the expropriation in the public interest of all the shares in the companies comprising the RUMASA group, including those of the parent company (Article 1). The State, which was the beneficiary of this measure, was to take immediate possession of the expropriated property through the intermediary of the Directorate General for National Assets (Article 2). The legislative decree was confirmed on 2 March 1983 by the Chamber of Deputies. It gave rise to an appeal to the Constitutional Court (recurso de inconstitucionalidad, Article 161 para. 1 (a) of the Constitution, see paragraph 26 below), as a group of deputies contested its constitutional validity. The Constitutional Court dismissed the deputies’ appeal by a judgment of 2 December 1983, adopted with the President’s casting vote; in a dissenting opinion, six members of the court expressed the view that the expropriation procedure followed was contrary to the Constitution.

In the meantime Law no. 7/1983 of 29 June 1983, published a day later in the Official State Gazette (Boletín Oficial del Estado), had replaced the legislative decree. Articles 1 and 2 thereof ordered the immediate expropriation and transfer of possession of the companies concerned in similar terms to those of the legislative decree (see paragraph 9 above). The aim of these measures was to protect the public interest because, in order to finance the group’s companies, its banks had taken risks considered to be disproportionate in relation to their solvency, thereby jeopardising “the stability of the banking system and the interests of the depositors, employees and third parties“.

B. The action for the restitution of the expropriated property

1. The proceedings at first instance

Between the publication of the legislative decree and that of Law no. 7/1983, Mr José María Ruiz-Mateos had, on 8 April 1983, both on his own behalf and on that of the other applicants and RUMASA S.A., instituted summary proceedings for the restitution of the expropriated property (interdicto de recobrar). On 11 April the Madrid First-Instance Court (juzgado de primera instancia) no. 18 - composed of a single judge - declared the application inadmissible on procedural grounds. The first applicant had failed to adduce evidence establishing that he had been divested of the assets as alleged and showing that prior to the impugned measure the assets in question had been in his possession.

On 9 May 1983 Mr José María Ruiz-Mateos lodged a further application concerning 50% of the RUMASA S.A. shares. The other five applicants followed suit on 27 May with regard to the remaining shares, each claiming 10%. The two cases were allotted respectively to Madrid First-Instance Courts nos. 18, which reopened the file, and 21.

The Counsel for the State (Abogado del Estado), representing the Government, obtained, on 4 and 5 July respectively, a stay of three months in each of the two sets of proceedings to enable him to consult his superiors. The applicants’ appeals against those decisions were dismissed on 16 and 18 July. On 21 September the Counsel for the State applied for the joinder of the two sets of proceedings. Court no. 18 acceded to this request on 22 November, having received the consent of Mr José María Ruiz-Mateos on 18 November. On 27 March 1984 Court no. 21 ordered that the file of the proceedings before it be transmitted to Court no. 18, the other five applicants having given their agreement on 23 March. Court no. 18 received the file on 9 May.

On 21 March 1984 the first applicant had requested Court no. 18 to refer to the Constitutional Court a question on the conformity of Articles 1 and 2 of Law no. 7/1983 (see paragraph 10 above) with Articles 14, 24 and 33 of the Constitution (cuestión de inconstitucionalidad, see paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 below). The court held hearings on 18 June and 17 September 1984. On 19 September the judge invited the parties to submit observations on this matter within ten days (Article 35 of Institutional Law no. 2/1979 on the Constitutional Court, “Institutional Law no. 2/1979“, see paragraph 27 below). On 29 September the Counsel for the State replied that the question was not material to summary proceedings for the examination of an action to recover possession. On 1 October the Attorney General’s department also expressed its opposition to the motion. On the same date in support of their claims the applicants submitted two memorials, respectively eighty-five and thirty-seven pages long.

By a decision (auto) of 5 October 1984 Court no. 18 referred to the Constitutional Court the question of the conformity of the above-mentioned articles of Law no. 7/1983 with Article 24 para. 1 of the Constitution inasmuch as it had not been open to the applicants either to invoke in the courts their right of property in respect of the assets expropriated by legislative action or to challenge the necessity of seizing them. In the opinion of the first-instance court, the decision on the merits of the dispute depended on the validity of the provisions in issue.

The Constitutional Court found the question admissible on 17 October 1984; it then gave notice of the question to the Chamber of Deputies, the Senate, the Government and the Attorney General (Fiscal General del Estado), who were each entitled to file observations within the same fifteen-day period (Article 37 para. 2 of Institutional Law no. 2/1979, see paragraph 27 below). The Constitutional Court received the observations of the Attorney General’s department and of the Counsel for the State on 5 and 6 November respectively; on 12 November the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies indicated that the Chamber did not intend to submit observations.

On 27 January 1986 Mr José María Ruiz-Mateos complained of the delay in the proceedings; he relied in this connection on Article 24 para. 2 of the Constitution (see paragraph 25 below) and Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1). The Constitutional Court joined the application (recurso de queja) to the file on 30 January, but did not pursue the matter because the applicant lacked locus standi. On 7 February he again applied to the Constitutional Court, alleging that the decision of 30 January infringed Article 24 of the Constitution. He also maintained that he had locus standi in respect of the constitutional proceedings by virtue of his status as a party in the main proceedings. On 21 February the Constitutional Court confirmed its earlier decision.

Following the election to the Constitutional Court of six new members, on 26 March 1986 Mr José María Ruiz-Mateos challenged two of these judges for lack of impartiality. He claimed that one of them was well-known to be a friend of the Prime Minister and the other had already been involved in the case as adviser to the Minister of Justice and had, among other things, participated in preparing the speech to Parliament on the expropriation of RUMASA. On 10 April the Constitutional Court dismissed the challenge on the ground that the applicant lacked locus standi.

By a judgment of 19 December 1986, it held that Articles 1 and 2 of Law no. 7/1983 were compatible with Article 24 of the Constitution. It found that legislative expropriation - even by means of a special statute concerning a specific case - was not contrary to the Constitution. Although this admittedly meant that the persons concerned suffered restrictions on the judicial protection of their rights, as they could not challenge in the courts the necessity of the seizure of their assets, it was always open to them to contest the measure in the administrative courts and to ask those courts to refer a question to the Constitutional Court on the constitutional conformity of such action. In addition an appeal (amparo), founded on the right to equality before the law, lay against the final decision of the administrative courts. Finally, the law in issue had in no way deprived the persons concerned of their right to appropriate compensation, a right which they could assert before the Provincial Expropriation Board (jurado provincial d’expropiación) - the competent administrative body -, and then in the administrative courts. Two judges expressed the view, in a dissenting opinion, that the expropriation procedure used had deprived the applicants of their right of access to the courts.

This judgment was communicated to Court no. 18 on 22 December 1986. The following day that court dismissed the action for restitution.

2. The appeal proceedings

On 27 December 1986 the applicants appealed to the Audiencia provincial of Madrid, which declared the appeal admissible on 5 February 1987. The examination of the appeal began on 26 June 1988. The court communicated the file to each of the parties in turn, each party having ten days to study it. The hearing was initially set down for 21 October, but was adjourned at the request of the applicants’ lawyer, who was unable to attend. As soon as the hearing opened on 28 November, the applicants sought a stay of the proceedings until the European Commission and Court of Human Rights had had an opportunity to rule on their application to Strasbourg. In the alternative, they requested the Audiencia provincial to refer to the Constitutional Court a new question concerning the compatibility of Articles 1 and 2 of Law no. 7/1983 with Articles 14 and 33 para. 3 of the Constitution (see paragraph 25 below). The court ordered an adjournment so as to allow the applicants to submit documents in support of their first request. On 19 December 1988 they supplied a translation of the correspondence from the Secretariat of the Commission. After a further hearing on 13 February 1989, the court refused to stay the proceedings. On 7 July 1989 it overruled the applicants’ objection to this decision.

On 14 February 1989 it had invited the parties and the Attorney General’s department to give their views on whether the above-mentioned question as to constitutional conformity should be submitted to the Constitutional Court (Article 35 para. 2 of Institutional Law no. 2/1979, see paragraphs 21 above and 27 below). After having received their comments, the Audiencia provincial referred the question to the Constitutional Court on 9 July 1989. The latter court declared it admissible on 31 October 1989, then communicated it to the institutions of the State listed in Article 37 para. 2 of Institutional Law no. 2/1979 (see paragraph 27 below). The Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies replied on 17 November that the Chamber did not intend to submit observations; on the same day and the following day respectively, Counsel for the State and the Attorney General’s department filed their submissions.

By a judgment of 15 January 1991 the Constitutional Court found the contested articles of Law no. 7/1983 to be compatible with Articles 14 and 33 para. 3 of the Constitution. Two judges expressed a dissenting opinion.

The Audiencia provincial was notified of this on 25 January 1991 and set down a hearing for 22 February. On that occasion the applicants made a further application for the proceedings to be stayed. The court dismissed their appeal by a judgment of 25 February. On 6 March the applicants lodged an application for the interpretation of that judgment; their application was dismissed on 11 March 1991.

II. THE APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW

1. The Constitution

The relevant Articles of the 1978 Constitution are worded as follows: Article 14 “Spaniards shall be equal before the law and may not be discriminated against in any way on account of birth, race, sex, religion, opinion or any other condition or personal or social circumstance.“ Article 24 “1. Every person has the right to obtain the effective protection of the judges and the courts in the exercise of his legitimate rights and interests, and in no case may he be denied that protection.

Likewise, all persons have the right of access to the ordinary courts as predetermined by law; to the defence and assistance of a lawyer; to be informed of the charges brought against them; to a public trial without undue delays and with full guarantees; to the use of evidence pertinent to their defence; not to make self-incriminating statements; not to declare themselves guilty; and to the presumption of innocence. ...“ Article 33 “1. Private property rights ... are recognised.

...

No-one may be deprived of his property and rights, except on justified grounds of public interest against proper compensation and in accordance with the provisions of the law.“

The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court is defined as follows: Article 161 para. 1 “The Constitutional Court has jurisdiction over the whole of Spanish territory and is competent to hear: (a) appeals against alleged unconstitutionality of laws and regulations having the force of law ...; (b) individual appeals for protection (recurso de amparo) against violation of the rights and liberties referred to in Article 53 para. 2 of the Constitution, in the circumstances and manner laid down by law; (c) conflicts of jurisdiction between the State and the Autonomous Communities or between the Autonomous Communities themselves. ...“ Only the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 to 29 of the Constitution may be the subject of an amparo appeal, which is not therefore available in respect of the right to property secured under Article 33. Article 163 “If a judicial body considers, in the course of proceedings, that a regulation with the status of law which is applicable in those proceedings and upon the validity of which the judgment depends may be contrary to the Constitution, it may bring the matter before the Constitutional Court in the circumstances, manner and subject to the consequences to be laid down by law; such consequences shall in no case be suspensive.“ Article 164 “1. The judgments of the Constitutional Court shall be published in the Official State Gazette, together with any dissenting opinions. They have the force of res judicata with effect from the day following their publication, and no appeal may be brought against them. Those which declare the unconstitutionality of a law or of a rule with the force of law, and all those which do not merely recognise an individual right, shall be fully binding on all persons.

Unless the judgment rules otherwise, that part of the law not affected by unconstitutionality shall remain in force.“

2. Institutional Law no. 2/1979 on the Constitutional Court

Chapter III of the Institutional Law on the Constitutional Court is entitled “On questions of constitutionality submitted by judges and courts“ and is worded as follows: Article 35 “1. When a judge or court, ex proprio motu or at the request of a party, decides that a provision having the status of law which applies in the case in issue and on the validity of which his or its decision depends might be contrary to the Constitution, he or it shall refer the matter to the Constitutional Court, in accordance with the provisions of the present law.

Judges or courts shall not refer such a question until the case is ready to be tried and they must do so within the time-limits laid down for ruling on the case. They must specify which law or provision having the status of law is alleged to be unconstitutional and which article of the Constitution is considered to have been breached. They must also state the precise reasons why the outcome of the proceedings depends on the validity of the contested provision. Before taking a final decision on whether to refer the question to the Constitutional Court, the judge or court must first hear the views of the parties to the proceedings and the Attorney General’s department in order to give them the opportunity, within a single and non-extendable ten-day time-limit, to submit any observations they may wish to make concerning the pertinence of the question. The judge shall then announce his decision, without taking any further steps, within three days. No appeal shall lie against this decision. However, the question as to constitutionality may be raised again in subsequent proceedings until the judgment has become final.“ Article 36 “A question as to constitutionality referred to the Constitutional Court by a judge or court must be accompanied by a certified copy of the main file and, in so far as there are any, the observations provided for in the preceding article.“ Article 37 “1. On receipt of the file the Constitutional Court shall follow the procedure laid down in paragraph 2 of the present article. However, the Court may declare the question inadmissible, in a decision stating its reasons, after hearing only the Attorney General, when the procedural requirements are not satisfied or when the question is manifestly ill-founded.

The Constitutional Court shall give notice of the question to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate via their respective Speakers, to the Attorney General and via the Ministry of Justice to the Government. If the question raises an issue concerning a law or another provision having the status of law adopted by an Autonomous Community, notice thereof shall also be given to its legislative and executive authorities. All these authorities may appear before the court and submit observations on the question referred within a single and non-extendable fifteen-day time-limit. When this time-limit has expired, the court shall give judgment within fifteen days, except when it considers a longer period, which may not exceed thirty days, to be necessary, in which case it must state the reasons for its decision.“ PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The applicants lodged their application with the Commission on 5 May 1987. They alleged in the first place that their case had not been given a fair hearing conducted within a reasonable time by an impartial tribunal (Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention) (art. 6-1). They claimed in addition that they had been deprived of their right of access to the courts to challenge the public interest justification for the expropriation and the necessity of the immediate transfer of their property (Articles 6 para. 1 and 13 of the Convention) (art. 6-1, art. 13). Finally, they complained of discrimination in relation to other Spanish citizens in that the latter were subject to the ordinary law on expropriations and could therefore institute proceedings in the administrative courts (Article 14 read in conjunction with Articles 6 para. 1 and 13) (art. 14+6-1, art. 14+13).

On 6 November 1990 the Commission declared the first complaint admissible and the remainder of the application (no. 12952/87) inadmissible. In its report of 14 January 1992 (made under Article 31) (art. 31), the Commission expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) inasmuch as (a) the applicants had not been given a fair hearing (thirteen votes to two) and (b) the relevant proceedings had not been conducted within a reasonable time (eleven votes to four). The full text of the Commission’s opinion and of the three separate opinions contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57838_a11_e1
001-57838_a11_em1
ORG
NO_MASK
Kingdom of Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e2
001-57838_a11_em2
DATETIME
QUASI
20 and 21 February 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e3
001-57838_a11_em3
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three-month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e4
001-57838_a11_em4
ORG
NO_MASK
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e5
001-57838_a11_em5
CODE
DIRECT
12952/87
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e1
001-57838_a11_em6
ORG
NO_MASK
001-57838_a11_em1
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e6
001-57838_a11_em7
DEM
NO_MASK
Spanish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e7
001-57838_a11_em8
PERSON
QUASI
Mr José María
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e8
001-57838_a11_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Zoilo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e9
001-57838_a11_em10
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Rafael
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e10
001-57838_a11_em11
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Isidoro
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e11
001-57838_a11_em12
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Alfonso
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e12
001-57838_a11_em13
PERSON
DIRECT
Mrs María Dolores Ruiz-Mateos
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e13
001-57838_a11_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
5 May 1987
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e1
001-57838_a11_em15
ORG
NO_MASK
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e6
001-57838_a11_em16
DEM
NO_MASK
Spanish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e14
001-57838_a11_em17
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. M. Morenilla
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e6
001-57838_a11_em18
DEM
NO_MASK
Spanish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e15
001-57838_a11_em19
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr R. Ryssdal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e16
001-57838_a11_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
27 February 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e17
001-57838_a11_em21
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr F. Gölcüklü
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e18
001-57838_a11_em22
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr C. Russo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e19
001-57838_a11_em23
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr N. Valticos
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e20
001-57838_a11_em24
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mrs E. Palm
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e21
001-57838_a11_em25
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr R. Pekkanen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e22
001-57838_a11_em26
PERSON
QUASI
Mr F. Bigi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e23
001-57838_a11_em27
PERSON
QUASI
Mr L. Wildhaber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e24
001-57838_a11_em28
DATETIME
NO_MASK
26 February
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e14
001-57838_a11_em29
PERSON
NO_MASK
001-57838_a11_em17
Mr Morenilla
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e25
001-57838_a11_em30
DATETIME
NO_MASK
6 April
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e26
001-57838_a11_em31
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Rafael de Mendizábal Allende
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e27
001-57838_a11_em32
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e28
001-57838_a11_em33
DATETIME
NO_MASK
20 October
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em34
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e30
001-57838_a11_em35
DATETIME
NO_MASK
20 November
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57838_a11_e31
001-57838_a11_em36
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Dámaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e32
001-57838_a11_em37
ORG
NO_MASK
General Council of the Judiciary
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e15
001-57838_a11_em38
PERSON
NO_MASK
001-57838_a11_em19
Mr Ryssdal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e33
001-57838_a11_em39
DATETIME
QUASI
6 July 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e34
001-57838_a11_em40
DATETIME
NO_MASK
7 July
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e35
001-57838_a11_em41
DATETIME
NO_MASK
8 September
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e36
001-57838_a11_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
10 April and 30 June 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57838_a11_e37
001-57838_a11_em43
ORG
NO_MASK
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57838_a11_e38
001-57838_a11_em44
ORG
NO_MASK
Government of the Portuguese Republic
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e39
001-57838_a11_em45
DATETIME
NO_MASK
10 June and 27 August
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e40
001-57838_a11_em46
DATETIME
QUASI
23 November 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57838_a11_e41
001-57838_a11_em47
PERSON
QUASI
Mr de Mendizábal Allende
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e42
001-57838_a11_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
27 November 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e43
001-57838_a11_em49
DATETIME
QUASI
27 January 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e44
001-57838_a11_em50
LOC
NO_MASK
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e45
001-57838_a11_em51
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr R. Bernhardt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57838_a11_e15
001-57838_a11_em52
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr Ryssdal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e6
001-57838_a11_em53
DEM
NO_MASK
Spanish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e46
001-57838_a11_em54
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Borrego Borrego
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e47
001-57838_a11_em55
ORG
NO_MASK
Legal Department for Human Rights, Ministry of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e48
001-57838_a11_em56
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J.L. Fuertes Suárez
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e49
001-57838_a11_em57
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M.P. Pellonpää
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e50
001-57838_a11_em58
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M. García Montes
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e51
001-57838_a11_em59
PERSON
QUASI
Mr S. Sánchez Pardo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e52
001-57838_a11_em60
PERSON
QUASI
Mr F. Ruhlmann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e53
001-57838_a11_em61
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Borrego Borrego
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e54
001-57838_a11_em62
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Pellonpää
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e55
001-57838_a11_em63
PERSON
QUASI
Mr García Montes
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e56
001-57838_a11_em64
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Sánchez Pardo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e57
001-57838_a11_em65
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Ruhlmann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e7
001-57838_a11_em66
PERSON
QUASI
001-57838_a11_em8
Mr José María Ruiz-Mateos
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57838_a11_e58
001-57838_a11_em67
DEM
NO_MASK
businessman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e8
001-57838_a11_em68
PERSON
QUASI
001-57838_a11_em9
Mr Zoilo Ruiz-Mateos
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e9
001-57838_a11_em69
PERSON
QUASI
001-57838_a11_em10
Mr Rafael Ruiz-Mateos
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e10
001-57838_a11_em70
PERSON
QUASI
001-57838_a11_em11
Mr Isidoro Ruiz-Mateos
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e11
001-57838_a11_em71
PERSON
QUASI
001-57838_a11_em12
Mr Alfonso Ruiz-Mateos
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57838_a11_e12
001-57838_a11_em72
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs María Dolores Ruiz-Mateos
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e6
001-57838_a11_em73
DEM
NO_MASK
Spanish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e59
001-57838_a11_em74
DATETIME
QUASI
1983
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e60
001-57838_a11_em75
QUANTITY
QUASI
100%
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e61
001-57838_a11_em76
ORG
QUASI
RUMASA S.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e62
001-57838_a11_em77
ORG
QUASI
RUMASA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e61
001-57838_a11_em78
ORG
QUASI
RUMASA S.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e62
001-57838_a11_em79
ORG
QUASI
RUMASA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e63
001-57838_a11_em80
DATETIME
QUASI
23 February 1983
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e62
001-57838_a11_em81
ORG
QUASI
RUMASA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e64
001-57838_a11_em82
ORG
NO_MASK
Directorate General for National Assets
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e65
001-57838_a11_em83
DATETIME
QUASI
2 March 1983
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e66
001-57838_a11_em84
ORG
NO_MASK
Chamber of Deputies
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em85
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em86
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e67
001-57838_a11_em87
DATETIME
QUASI
2 December 1983
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e68
001-57838_a11_em88
CODE
NO_MASK
7/1983
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e69
001-57838_a11_em89
DATETIME
NO_MASK
29 June 1983
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e70
001-57838_a11_em90
DATETIME
NO_MASK
day later
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e71
001-57838_a11_em91
ORG
QUASI
001-57838_a11_em92
Official State Gazette
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e71
001-57838_a11_em92
ORG
QUASI
Boletín Oficial del Estado
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e7
001-57838_a11_em93
PERSON
QUASI
Mr José María Ruiz-Mateos
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e72
001-57838_a11_em94
DATETIME
QUASI
8 April 1983
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e61
001-57838_a11_em95
ORG
QUASI
RUMASA S.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e73
001-57838_a11_em96
DATETIME
NO_MASK
11 April
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e74
001-57838_a11_em97
ORG
NO_MASK
Madrid First-Instance Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57838_a11_e74
001-57838_a11_em98
ORG
NO_MASK
001-57838_a11_em97
juzgado de primera instancia
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e75
001-57838_a11_em99
DATETIME
QUASI
9 May 1983
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e7
001-57838_a11_em100
PERSON
QUASI
Mr José María Ruiz-Mateos
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e76
001-57838_a11_em101
QUANTITY
QUASI
50%
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e61
001-57838_a11_em102
ORG
QUASI
RUMASA S.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57838_a11_e77
001-57838_a11_em103
DATETIME
NO_MASK
27 May
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e78
001-57838_a11_em104
QUANTITY
QUASI
10%
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e79
001-57838_a11_em105
ORG
NO_MASK
Madrid First-Instance Courts
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e80
001-57838_a11_em106
DATETIME
NO_MASK
4 and 5 July
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e81
001-57838_a11_em107
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e82
001-57838_a11_em108
DATETIME
NO_MASK
16 and 18 July
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e83
001-57838_a11_em109
DATETIME
NO_MASK
21 September
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e84
001-57838_a11_em110
DATETIME
NO_MASK
22 November
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e7
001-57838_a11_em111
PERSON
QUASI
Mr José María Ruiz-Mateos
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e85
001-57838_a11_em112
DATETIME
NO_MASK
18 November
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57838_a11_e86
001-57838_a11_em113
DATETIME
QUASI
27 March 1984
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e87
001-57838_a11_em114
DATETIME
NO_MASK
23 March
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e88
001-57838_a11_em115
DATETIME
QUASI
21 March 1984
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em116
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e89
001-57838_a11_em117
DATETIME
NO_MASK
18 June
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e90
001-57838_a11_em118
DATETIME
QUASI
17 September 1984
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e91
001-57838_a11_em119
DATETIME
NO_MASK
19 September
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e92
001-57838_a11_em120
DATETIME
NO_MASK
ten days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e93
001-57838_a11_em121
CODE
NO_MASK
2/1979
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em122
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e93
001-57838_a11_em123
CODE
NO_MASK
2/1979
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e94
001-57838_a11_em124
DATETIME
NO_MASK
29 September
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e95
001-57838_a11_em125
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1 October
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57838_a11_e96
001-57838_a11_em126
DATETIME
QUASI
5 October 1984
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em127
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em128
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e97
001-57838_a11_em129
DATETIME
QUASI
17 October 1984
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e66
001-57838_a11_em130
ORG
NO_MASK
Chamber of Deputies
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e98
001-57838_a11_em131
ORG
NO_MASK
Senate
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e99
001-57838_a11_em132
DATETIME
NO_MASK
fifteen-day
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e93
001-57838_a11_em133
CODE
NO_MASK
2/1979
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em134
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e100
001-57838_a11_em135
DATETIME
NO_MASK
5 and 6 November
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e101
001-57838_a11_em136
DATETIME
NO_MASK
12 November
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e66
001-57838_a11_em137
ORG
NO_MASK
Chamber of Deputies
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e102
001-57838_a11_em138
DATETIME
QUASI
27 January 1986
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e7
001-57838_a11_em139
PERSON
QUASI
Mr José María Ruiz-Mateos
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em140
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e103
001-57838_a11_em141
DATETIME
NO_MASK
30 January
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e104
001-57838_a11_em142
DATETIME
NO_MASK
7 February
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em143
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e103
001-57838_a11_em144
DATETIME
NO_MASK
30 January
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e105
001-57838_a11_em145
DATETIME
NO_MASK
21 February
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em146
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em147
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e106
001-57838_a11_em148
DATETIME
QUASI
26 March 1986
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e7
001-57838_a11_em149
PERSON
QUASI
Mr José María Ruiz-Mateos
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e107
001-57838_a11_em150
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliament
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e62
001-57838_a11_em151
ORG
QUASI
RUMASA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e108
001-57838_a11_em152
DATETIME
NO_MASK
10 April
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em153
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e109
001-57838_a11_em154
DATETIME
QUASI
19 December 1986
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e68
001-57838_a11_em155
CODE
NO_MASK
7/1983
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em156
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e110
001-57838_a11_em157
ORG
NO_MASK
Provincial Expropriation Board
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57838_a11_e110
001-57838_a11_em158
ORG
NO_MASK
001-57838_a11_em157
jurado provincial d’expropiación
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e111
001-57838_a11_em159
DATETIME
QUASI
22 December 1986
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e112
001-57838_a11_em160
DATETIME
NO_MASK
following day
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e113
001-57838_a11_em161
DATETIME
QUASI
27 December 1986
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57838_a11_e114
001-57838_a11_em162
ORG
NO_MASK
Audiencia provincial of Madrid
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e115
001-57838_a11_em163
LOC
NO_MASK
Madrid
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e116
001-57838_a11_em164
DATETIME
QUASI
5 February 1987
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e117
001-57838_a11_em165
DATETIME
QUASI
26 June 1988
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e92
001-57838_a11_em166
DATETIME
NO_MASK
ten days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e118
001-57838_a11_em167
DATETIME
NO_MASK
21 October
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e119
001-57838_a11_em168
DATETIME
NO_MASK
28 November
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e120
001-57838_a11_em169
ORG
NO_MASK
European Commission
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e121
001-57838_a11_em170
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Human Rights
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e122
001-57838_a11_em171
LOC
NO_MASK
Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em172
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e123
001-57838_a11_em173
DATETIME
QUASI
19 December 1988
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e124
001-57838_a11_em174
ORG
NO_MASK
Secretariat of the Commission
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e125
001-57838_a11_em175
DATETIME
QUASI
13 February 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e126
001-57838_a11_em176
DATETIME
QUASI
7 July 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e127
001-57838_a11_em177
DATETIME
QUASI
14 February 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em178
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e93
001-57838_a11_em179
CODE
NO_MASK
2/1979
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em180
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e128
001-57838_a11_em181
DATETIME
QUASI
9 July 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e129
001-57838_a11_em182
DATETIME
QUASI
31 October 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e93
001-57838_a11_em183
CODE
NO_MASK
2/1979
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e66
001-57838_a11_em184
ORG
NO_MASK
Chamber of Deputies
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e130
001-57838_a11_em185
DATETIME
NO_MASK
17 November
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e112
001-57838_a11_em186
DATETIME
NO_MASK
following day
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e131
001-57838_a11_em187
DATETIME
QUASI
15 January 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em188
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e132
001-57838_a11_em189
DATETIME
QUASI
25 January 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e133
001-57838_a11_em190
DATETIME
NO_MASK
22 February
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e134
001-57838_a11_em191
DATETIME
NO_MASK
25 February
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e135
001-57838_a11_em192
DATETIME
NO_MASK
6 March
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e136
001-57838_a11_em193
DATETIME
QUASI
11 March 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e137
001-57838_a11_em194
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1978
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e138
001-57838_a11_em195
DEM
NO_MASK
Spaniards
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em196
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em197
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e6
001-57838_a11_em198
DEM
NO_MASK
Spanish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em199
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em200
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e71
001-57838_a11_em201
ORG
QUASI
Official State Gazette
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e93
001-57838_a11_em202
CODE
NO_MASK
2/1979
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em203
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em204
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em205
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e139
001-57838_a11_em206
DATETIME
NO_MASK
ten-day
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e140
001-57838_a11_em207
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em208
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em209
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e29
001-57838_a11_em210
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e66
001-57838_a11_em211
ORG
NO_MASK
Chamber of Deputies
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e98
001-57838_a11_em212
ORG
NO_MASK
Senate
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e99
001-57838_a11_em213
DATETIME
NO_MASK
fifteen-day
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e141
001-57838_a11_em214
DATETIME
NO_MASK
fifteen days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e142
001-57838_a11_em215
DATETIME
NO_MASK
thirty days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e13
001-57838_a11_em216
DATETIME
QUASI
5 May 1987
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e6
001-57838_a11_em217
DEM
NO_MASK
Spanish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e143
001-57838_a11_em218
DATETIME
QUASI
6 November 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e5
001-57838_a11_em219
CODE
DIRECT
12952/87
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57838_a11_e144
001-57838_a11_em220
DATETIME
QUASI
14 January 1992
María Dolores Ruiz-Mateos
ESP
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: María Dolores Ruiz-Mateos