PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 11364/03) against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a German national, Mr Burghard Theodor Mooren (“the applicant”), on 26 March 2003.

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

The applicant complained that, in the proceedings for review of his pre-trial detention, the Court of Appeal, by remitting his case back to the court of first instance instead of quashing the detention order which it had found not to comply with domestic law, had unlawfully deprived him of his liberty and had unduly delayed the judicial review proceedings. Furthermore, he claimed that his defence counsel had been refused access to the investigation files. He relied, in particular, on Article 5 of the Convention.

On 27 October 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1963. At the date the application was lodged, he was living in Mönchengladbach.

1. The District Court’s detention order

On 25 July 2002 the applicant was arrested.

On the same day the Mönchengladbach District Court, after hearing representations from the applicant, ordered his detention on remand. The applicant was assisted from this point on by counsel. The District Court found that there was a strong suspicion that the applicant had evaded taxes on some twenty occasions between 1996 and June 2002. He had been working as a self-employed commercial agent for several firms in Germany since 1994 and been running a telephone service since 2000. In 2001 the company TMA Aachen had paid him commission amounting to 124,926.22 Deutschmarks (DEM). The court found that, according to the documents before it at that date, the applicant was suspected of having evaded turnover taxes of 57,374 euros (EUR), income taxes of EUR 133,279 and trade taxes of EUR 20,266.

The District Court noted that the applicant, who had availed himself of the right to remain silent, was strongly suspected of tax evasion on the basis of the business records that had been seized when his home was searched. He had to be placed in pre-trial detention because of a danger of collusion (Verdunkelungsgefahr) (see section 112 § 2 no. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – paragraph 41 below). The documents seized were incomplete. There was therefore a risk that the applicant, if released, might destroy the missing documents or conceal further business transactions and accounts.

2. The District Court’s review of the detention order

On 7 August 2002 the applicant, represented by counsel, lodged a motion for review of his detention order (Haftprüfung) with the Mönchengladbach District Court. His counsel also requested access to the case files. He argued that he had a right to inspect the files in order to examine all the facts and evidence on which the arrest warrant and, in particular, the strong suspicion that an offence had been committed were based and that domestic law prohibited the court from considering facts and evidence to which defence counsel had been refused access pursuant to section 147 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 44 below).

On 12 August 2002 the Mönchengladbach Public Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant’s counsel that he was being refused access to the case files pursuant to section 147 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as access would jeopardise the purpose of the investigation. It added, however, that the public prosecutor in charge of the case was prepared to inform counsel orally about the facts and evidence. The applicant’s counsel did not take up that offer.

On 16 August 2002 the Mönchengladbach District Court heard representations from the applicant and his defence counsel. The applicant argued that there was no risk of collusion or of his absconding. Should the court nevertheless consider that he might abscond if released he was ready to comply with any conditions imposed by the court, such as handing over his identity papers. The applicant’s counsel complained that he had still not had access to the case files.

By an order of the same day, the Mönchengladbach District Court, which had before it the case files of the proceedings, upheld the arrest warrant. It found that there was still a risk that, if released, the applicant would tamper with factual evidence or interfere with witnesses. The applicant had so far tried to conceal his true place of residence and other personal details from the authorities and had acted with the intent to mislead which, in the particular circumstances of the case, proved that there was a danger of collusion.

3. The Regional Court’s review of the detention order

Following the applicant’s appeal, which was lodged on 16 August 2002 and was followed up by detailed reasons on 19 August 2002, the Regional Court informed the applicant in a letter dated 27 August 2002 that it considered that the risk of his absconding could serve as a ground for his continued detention. As to his counsel’s request for access to the case files, it stated that he should be informed orally about the content of the files in the first instance.

In a letter dated 2 September 2002, the applicant contested that view. He claimed, in particular, that in his case mere oral information about the content of the case files would not be sufficient.

On 9 September 2002, after hearing representations from the Public Prosecutor’s Office and considering the case files, the Mönchengladbach Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the District Court’s decision dated 16 August 2002. It found that there was a strong suspicion that the applicant had evaded income, turnover and trade taxes. Furthermore, there was a danger of his absconding within the meaning of section 112 § 2 no. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 41 below), as the applicant had connections in foreign countries and faced a heavy sentence.

In view of defence counsel’s refusal to accept the offer made by the Public Prosecutor’s Office to explain the content of the case files orally, the Regional Court found that it was impossible to assess whether the information given in this manner would be sufficient. At the present stage of the proceedings, counsel for the defence could not, however, claim to be entitled to unlimited access to the complete case files.

The Regional Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 16 September 2002.

4. The Court of Appeal’s review of the detention order

On 16 September 2002 the applicant, represented by counsel, lodged a further appeal against the detention order. He again claimed that he had a constitutional right to be given access to the facts and evidence on which the detention order was based.

On 17 September 2002 the Mönchengladbach Regional Court decided, without giving further reasons, not to amend its decision of 9 September 2002. On 18 September 2002 the Mönchengladbach Public Prosecutor’s Office, which had the case files, drafted a report which was sent to the Düsseldorf Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office with the files the next day.

On 26 September 2002 the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, in its submissions to the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal, stated that it was not prepared to give the applicant access to the case files. It argued that it was sufficient for the applicant to be notified of the overview of the Düsseldorf Tax Fraud Office on the amount of his income and amount of the taxes evaded in the years in question. The submissions and the case files reached the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal on 2 October 2002.

On 2 October 2002 the applicant sent further observations to the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal.

On 9 October 2002 the applicant, who had been sent the submissions of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office on 7 October 2002, contested its arguments. He stated that the overview was merely a conclusion of the Tax Fraud Office the merits of which he could not examine without having access to the documents and records on which it was based.

On 14 October 2002 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal, on the applicant’s further appeal, quashed the District Court’s decision dated 16 August 2002 and the Regional Court’s decision dated 9 September 2002 upholding the applicant’s detention, and remitted the case to the District Court.

The Court of Appeal, which had the investigation files before it, found that the detention order issued by the District Court on 25 July 2002 did not comply with the legal requirements. Therefore, the decisions taken in the judicial review proceedings by the District Court on 16 August 2002 and by the Regional Court on 9 September 2002 (but not the detention order of 25 July 2002 itself) had to be quashed. Pursuant to section 114 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 42 below), the facts leading to a strong suspicion that the accused had committed a particular offence and the reasons for detention had to be set out in the detention order. In order to comply with the constitutional rights to be heard and to a fair trial, the facts and evidence on which the suspicion and the reasons for the defendant’s detention on remand were based had to be described in sufficient detail to enable the accused to comment on them and defend himself effectively.

The Court of Appeal noted that, in its decisions on the applicant’s detention, the District Court had, however, merely stated that the applicant was strongly suspected of tax evasion “on the basis of the business records seized when his home was searched”. It should, at minimum, have summarised the results of the evaluation of those records in order to enable the accused to oppose the decision on detention by making his own submissions or presenting evidence. This defect had not been remedied in the course of the subsequent decisions on the applicant’s continued detention. As counsel for the defence had also been refused access to the case files under section 147 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, these defects amounted to a denial of the right of the accused to be heard.

The Court of Appeal declined to take its own decision on the applicant’s detention itself pursuant to section 309 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 43 below) or to quash the detention order of 25 July 2002, which it considered to be defective in law (rechtsfehlerhaft), but not void (unwirksam). It stated that it would only quash the detention order if it was obvious that there was no strong suspicion that the accused had committed an offence and that there were no reasons for the arrest. It was for the District Court to inform the accused of the reasons on which the suspicion of his having committed an offence were based and to hear representations from him on that issue. Should the Public Prosecutor’s Office persist, in the interest of its investigations, in not informing the accused of the reasons, the detention order would have to be quashed.

As a consequence, the applicant remained in custody.

5. Fresh proceedings before the District Court

On 17 October 2002 the Mönchengladbach Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the District Court to issue a fresh amended detention order against the applicant.

On 29 October 2002 the Mönchengladbach District Court again heard representations from the applicant, his defence counsel, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and an official in charge of investigations at the Düsseldorf Tax Fraud Office on the applicant’s motion for judicial review of the detention order. The applicant’s counsel was given copies of four pages of the voluminous case files containing an overview by the Düsseldorf Tax Fraud Office of the amounts of income and taxes evaded by the applicant between 1991 and 2002. Relying on the applicant’s rights to be heard and to a fair trial, the applicant’s counsel complained that he had not been granted access to the case files before the hearing.

The Mönchengladbach District Court then issued a fresh detention order against the applicant. It stated that there was a strong suspicion that the applicant had evaded taxes on some twenty occasions between 1991 and June 2002. Listing in detail the applicant’s income from his various activities as a self-employed commercial agent and the amounts of tax payable, the District Court found that there was a strong suspicion that he had evaded turnover taxes of DEM 125,231.79, income taxes of DEM 260,025, solidarity taxes of DEM 15,240.11 and trade taxes of DEM 36,930. It based its suspicion on documents whose content was explained by a tax official present at the hearing, witness statements of the owners of the firms the applicant was working for, the applicant’s contracts of employment and the wage slips and commission statements that had been issued by the firms.

The District Court further found that there was a risk of the applicant’s absconding, which was a ground for detention under section 112 § 2 no. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He faced a lengthy prison sentence which could no longer be suspended on probation, had not notified the authorities of his place of residence for several years and had claimed that he was living in the Netherlands.

By an order of the same day, the Mönchengladbach District Court decided to suspend the execution of the arrest warrant on condition that the applicant, who in the meantime had complied with his duty to inform the authorities of his address, informed the court of every change of address, complied with all summonses issued by the court, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the police, and reported to the police three times a week. It suspended the execution of the order to release the applicant at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which had immediately lodged an appeal.

6. Renewed proceedings before the Regional Court and further developments

On 7 November 2002, after hearing representations from the applicant and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Mönchengladbach Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the detention order. It likewise dismissed the appeal lodged by the Public Prosecutor’s Office against the decision to suspend the execution of the detention order on the additional conditions that the applicant hand over his identity papers to the Public Prosecutor’s Office and deposit DEM 40,000 as security.

Having deposited the security, the applicant was released from prison on 7 November 2002.

On 8 November 2002 the applicant lodged a further appeal against the Regional Court’s decision, complaining that his counsel had still not been granted access to the case files.

By a letter dated 18 November 2002, the Mönchengladbach Public Prosecutor’s Office granted the applicant’s counsel access to the case files. It stated that it had intended to send the files to him at an earlier date. However, this had not been possible as the files had been at the Regional Court and had only recently been returned to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The applicant’s counsel received the files for inspection on 20 November 2002. The applicant withdrew his further appeal on 10 December 2002.

7. Proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court

On 23 October 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court against the decision of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal dated 14 October 2002 and the detention order issued by the Mönchengladbach District Court on 25 July 2002. In his submission, his rights to liberty, to be heard in court and to be informed promptly by a judge of the reasons for his detention on remand as well as his rights to be heard within a reasonable time and to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Basic Law had been violated. He argued in particular that his right to liberty, the deprivation of which was only constitutional if it was in accordance with the law, had been breached by his illegal detention on the basis of a void detention order. The complete refusal to allow his defence counsel access to the case files pursuant to section 147 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had violated his right to be heard in court as guaranteed by Article 103 § 1 of the Basic Law (see paragraph 45 below) and his right to liberty under Article 104 § 3 of the Basic Law (see paragraph 46 below). The impugned decisions disregarded both the case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court and the Court’s case-law as laid down in its judgments of 13 February 2001 in the cases of Garcia Alva, Lietzow and Schöps v. Germany. The Court of Appeal’s refusal to quash the detention order and to take a decision itself and its decision to remit the case to the District Court instead had also breached his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.

On 4 and 11 November 2002 the applicant extended his constitutional complaint to include the decisions of the Mönchengladbach District Court dated 29 October 2002 and the decision of the Mönchengladbach Regional Court dated 7 November 2002.

On 22 November 2002 the Federal Constitutional Court, without giving further reasons, declined to consider the applicant’s constitutional complaint against the detention orders issued by the Mönchengladbach District Court on 25 July 2002 and 29 October 2002, the decision of the Mönchengladbach Regional Court dated 7 November 2002 and the decision of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal dated 14 October 2002.

8. Further developments

On 9 March 2005 the Mönchengladbach District Court convicted the applicant on eight counts of tax evasion and sentenced him to a total of one year and eight months’ imprisonment suspended on probation. The court found that the applicant, who had confessed to the offences, had evaded turnover taxes of DEM 129,795, income taxes of DEM 344,802 and trade taxes of DEM 55,165.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e1
001-83983_a11_em1
CODE
DIRECT
11364/03
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-83983_a11_e2
001-83983_a11_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Republic of Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83983_a11_e3
001-83983_a11_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e4
001-83983_a11_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Burghard Theodor Mooren
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e5
001-83983_a11_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
26 March 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e6
001-83983_a11_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Hagmann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-83983_a11_e7
001-83983_a11_em7
LOC
NO_MASK
Mönchengladbach
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83983_a11_e2
001-83983_a11_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
001-83983_a11_em2
German Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e8
001-83983_a11_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs A. Wittling-Vogel
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e9
001-83983_a11_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Ministry of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e10
001-83983_a11_em11
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e11
001-83983_a11_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
27 October 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e12
001-83983_a11_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
1963
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e7
001-83983_a11_em14
LOC
QUASI
Mönchengladbach
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em15
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e14
001-83983_a11_em16
DATETIME
QUASI
25 July 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em17
ORG
QUASI
Mönchengladbach District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em18
ORG
NO_MASK
001-83983_a11_em17
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e15
001-83983_a11_em19
DATETIME
NO_MASK
between 1996 and June 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83983_a11_e16
001-83983_a11_em20
DEM
QUASI
commercial agent
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e17
001-83983_a11_em21
LOC
NO_MASK
Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e18
001-83983_a11_em22
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e19
001-83983_a11_em23
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e20
001-83983_a11_em24
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e21
001-83983_a11_em25
ORG
QUASI
TMA Aachen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e22
001-83983_a11_em26
QUANTITY
QUASI
124,926.22 Deutschmarks
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e23
001-83983_a11_em27
QUANTITY
QUASI
57,374 euros
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83983_a11_e24
001-83983_a11_em28
QUANTITY
QUASI
EUR 133,279
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83983_a11_e25
001-83983_a11_em29
QUANTITY
QUASI
EUR 20,266
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em30
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em31
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e26
001-83983_a11_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
7 August 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em33
ORG
QUASI
Mönchengladbach District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e27
001-83983_a11_em34
DATETIME
QUASI
12 August 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e28
001-83983_a11_em35
ORG
QUASI
Mönchengladbach Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e29
001-83983_a11_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
16 August 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em37
ORG
QUASI
Mönchengladbach District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em38
ORG
QUASI
Mönchengladbach District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83983_a11_e30
001-83983_a11_em39
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e29
001-83983_a11_em40
DATETIME
QUASI
16 August 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e31
001-83983_a11_em41
DATETIME
QUASI
19 August 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e30
001-83983_a11_em42
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e32
001-83983_a11_em43
DATETIME
QUASI
27 August 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e33
001-83983_a11_em44
DATETIME
QUASI
2 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e34
001-83983_a11_em45
DATETIME
QUASI
9 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e35
001-83983_a11_em46
ORG
NO_MASK
Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e30
001-83983_a11_em47
ORG
QUASI
001-83983_a11_em42
Mönchengladbach Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em48
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e29
001-83983_a11_em49
DATETIME
QUASI
16 August 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e35
001-83983_a11_em50
ORG
NO_MASK
Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e30
001-83983_a11_em51
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e30
001-83983_a11_em52
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e36
001-83983_a11_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
16 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e10
001-83983_a11_em54
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e36
001-83983_a11_em55
DATETIME
QUASI
16 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e37
001-83983_a11_em56
DATETIME
QUASI
17 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e30
001-83983_a11_em57
ORG
QUASI
Mönchengladbach Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e34
001-83983_a11_em58
DATETIME
QUASI
9 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e38
001-83983_a11_em59
DATETIME
QUASI
18 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e28
001-83983_a11_em60
ORG
QUASI
Mönchengladbach Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e39
001-83983_a11_em61
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e40
001-83983_a11_em62
DATETIME
NO_MASK
26 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e41
001-83983_a11_em63
ORG
NO_MASK
Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e42
001-83983_a11_em64
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e43
001-83983_a11_em65
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Tax Fraud Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e44
001-83983_a11_em66
DATETIME
NO_MASK
years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e42
001-83983_a11_em67
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e45
001-83983_a11_em68
DATETIME
QUASI
2 October 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e45
001-83983_a11_em69
DATETIME
QUASI
2 October 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e42
001-83983_a11_em70
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e46
001-83983_a11_em71
DATETIME
QUASI
9 October 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e41
001-83983_a11_em72
ORG
NO_MASK
Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e47
001-83983_a11_em73
DATETIME
QUASI
7 October 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e43
001-83983_a11_em74
ORG
NO_MASK
001-83983_a11_em65
Tax Fraud Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e48
001-83983_a11_em75
DATETIME
QUASI
14 October 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e42
001-83983_a11_em76
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em77
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e29
001-83983_a11_em78
DATETIME
QUASI
16 August 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e30
001-83983_a11_em79
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e34
001-83983_a11_em80
DATETIME
QUASI
9 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em81
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e10
001-83983_a11_em82
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em83
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e14
001-83983_a11_em84
DATETIME
QUASI
25 July 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em85
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e29
001-83983_a11_em86
DATETIME
QUASI
16 August 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e30
001-83983_a11_em87
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e34
001-83983_a11_em88
DATETIME
QUASI
9 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e14
001-83983_a11_em89
DATETIME
QUASI
25 July 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e10
001-83983_a11_em90
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em91
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e10
001-83983_a11_em92
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e14
001-83983_a11_em93
DATETIME
QUASI
25 July 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em94
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e35
001-83983_a11_em95
ORG
NO_MASK
Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em96
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e49
001-83983_a11_em97
DATETIME
QUASI
17 October 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e28
001-83983_a11_em98
ORG
QUASI
Mönchengladbach Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em99
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e50
001-83983_a11_em100
DATETIME
QUASI
29 October 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em101
ORG
QUASI
Mönchengladbach District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e35
001-83983_a11_em102
ORG
NO_MASK
Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e43
001-83983_a11_em103
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Tax Fraud Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e43
001-83983_a11_em104
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Tax Fraud Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e51
001-83983_a11_em105
DATETIME
NO_MASK
between 1991 and 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em106
ORG
QUASI
Mönchengladbach District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e52
001-83983_a11_em107
DATETIME
NO_MASK
between 1991 and June 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e16
001-83983_a11_em108
DEM
QUASI
commercial agent
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em109
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-83983_a11_e53
001-83983_a11_em110
QUANTITY
QUASI
DEM 125,231.79
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83983_a11_e54
001-83983_a11_em111
QUANTITY
QUASI
DEM 260,025
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83983_a11_e55
001-83983_a11_em112
QUANTITY
QUASI
DEM 15,240.11
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83983_a11_e56
001-83983_a11_em113
QUANTITY
QUASI
DEM 36,930
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em114
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e57
001-83983_a11_em115
DATETIME
NO_MASK
several years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e58
001-83983_a11_em116
LOC
NO_MASK
Netherlands
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em117
ORG
QUASI
Mönchengladbach District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e35
001-83983_a11_em118
ORG
NO_MASK
Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e35
001-83983_a11_em119
ORG
NO_MASK
Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e30
001-83983_a11_em120
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e59
001-83983_a11_em121
DATETIME
QUASI
7 November 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e35
001-83983_a11_em122
ORG
NO_MASK
Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e30
001-83983_a11_em123
ORG
QUASI
Mönchengladbach Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e35
001-83983_a11_em124
ORG
NO_MASK
Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e35
001-83983_a11_em125
ORG
NO_MASK
Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83983_a11_e60
001-83983_a11_em126
QUANTITY
QUASI
DEM 40,000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e59
001-83983_a11_em127
DATETIME
QUASI
7 November 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e61
001-83983_a11_em128
DATETIME
QUASI
8 November 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e30
001-83983_a11_em129
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e62
001-83983_a11_em130
DATETIME
QUASI
18 November 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e28
001-83983_a11_em131
ORG
QUASI
Mönchengladbach Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e30
001-83983_a11_em132
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e35
001-83983_a11_em133
ORG
NO_MASK
Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e63
001-83983_a11_em134
DATETIME
QUASI
20 November 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e64
001-83983_a11_em135
DATETIME
QUASI
10 December 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e65
001-83983_a11_em136
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e66
001-83983_a11_em137
DATETIME
QUASI
23 October 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e65
001-83983_a11_em138
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e42
001-83983_a11_em139
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e48
001-83983_a11_em140
DATETIME
QUASI
14 October 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em141
ORG
QUASI
Mönchengladbach District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e14
001-83983_a11_em142
DATETIME
QUASI
25 July 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e65
001-83983_a11_em143
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e67
001-83983_a11_em144
DATETIME
QUASI
13 February 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83983_a11_e68
001-83983_a11_em145
MISC
QUASI
Garcia Alva, Lietzow and Schöps v. Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e17
001-83983_a11_em146
ORG
NO_MASK
Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e10
001-83983_a11_em147
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em148
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e69
001-83983_a11_em149
DATETIME
QUASI
4 and 11 November 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em150
ORG
QUASI
Mönchengladbach District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e50
001-83983_a11_em151
DATETIME
QUASI
29 October 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e30
001-83983_a11_em152
ORG
QUASI
Mönchengladbach Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e59
001-83983_a11_em153
DATETIME
QUASI
7 November 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e70
001-83983_a11_em154
DATETIME
QUASI
22 November 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e65
001-83983_a11_em155
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em156
ORG
QUASI
Mönchengladbach District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e14
001-83983_a11_em157
DATETIME
QUASI
25 July 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e50
001-83983_a11_em158
DATETIME
QUASI
29 October 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e30
001-83983_a11_em159
ORG
QUASI
Mönchengladbach Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e59
001-83983_a11_em160
DATETIME
QUASI
7 November 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e42
001-83983_a11_em161
ORG
QUASI
Düsseldorf Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e48
001-83983_a11_em162
DATETIME
QUASI
14 October 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e71
001-83983_a11_em163
DATETIME
QUASI
9 March 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e13
001-83983_a11_em164
ORG
QUASI
Mönchengladbach District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e72
001-83983_a11_em165
DATETIME
NO_MASK
one year
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83983_a11_e73
001-83983_a11_em166
DATETIME
NO_MASK
eight months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-83983_a11_e74
001-83983_a11_em167
QUANTITY
QUASI
DEM 129,795
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83983_a11_e75
001-83983_a11_em168
QUANTITY
QUASI
DEM 344,802
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83983_a11_e76
001-83983_a11_em169
QUANTITY
QUASI
DEM 55,165
Burghard Theodor Mooren
DEU
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Burghard Theodor Mooren