PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 19055/05) against Romania and the United Kingdom lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Romanian national, Mr Andrei Deak (“the applicant”), on 24 May 2005.

The applicant was represented by Ms Diana-Elena Dragomir, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. The Romanian Government were represented by their Agent at the time, Ms Ruxandra Pasoi, and the United Kingdom’s Government were represented by their Agent, Ms Emily Willmott.

The applicant alleged, in particular, a breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 and Article 8 of the Convention.

On 16 March 2007 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Governments. 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, Mr Andrei Deak, is a Romanian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Bucharest.

The applicant married C.D. (hereinafter referred to as “the mother”), also a Romanian national, in January 1998. In July 1998 their son C.A. (hereinafter referred to as “the child”) was born.

In November 2000 they divorced and according to the divorce agreement between them, endorsed by a final court judgment, the mother was to have custody of the child, while the applicant obtained a right of access of 82 days per year and was to pay a monthly allowance.

In September 2002 the mother travelled to England to commence studying for a Master degree in Business and Administration and left the child in Romania with her parents.

In November 2002 the mother married a British national. She later returned to Romania and on 23 December 2002, without informing the applicant, took the child with her to London.

The applicant found out about the child’s removal from Romania to the United Kingdom in January 2003.

On 6 February 2003 he instituted proceedings in London before the High Court of Justice, Family Division (“the High Court”), under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”). The child and the mother were located by the British authorities; however, their place of residence was not disclosed to the applicant.

A directions hearing was held on 27 February 2003 before the High Court at which the parties were requested to file observations on the question whether the removal of the child from Romania was wrongful under Romanian law within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention. The judge in charge of the case also directed that the matter be set down for final hearing on 11 April 2003.

On 11 April 2003 the parties received permission to file further evidence.

By the time of the next hearing, on 9 May 2003, the High Court was presented by the applicant with documentary evidence emanating from the Ministry of Justice, the Romanian President’s Office, the Child Protection Authority and the Ombudsman, according to which the child’s removal was wrongful under Romanian law. However, the court was not convinced and, in accordance with Article 15 of the Hague Convention, requested a Romanian court decision on the matter.

On 11 June 2003 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Bucharest Third District Court (“District Court”) seeking a ruling that the child’s removal from Romania had been illegal.

On 16 July 2003 the applicant introduced a new application before the same court seeking a ruling that the child’s removal was contrary to Article 3 of the Hague Convention because he also had custody rights over the child.

On 1 September 2003 the District Court held the first hearing in respect of the applicant’s first action; however, as a result of the mother’s request for an adjournment, the proceedings were adjourned until 8 December 2003.

On 29 September 2003 the Romanian Ministry of Justice wrote to the High Court in London, informing it that the Romanian courts had exclusive competence in issuing decisions in accordance with Article 15 of the Hague Convention.

On 30 September 2003 the District Court in Bucharest held the first hearing in respect of the second action and adjourned the case on the grounds that the applicant had failed to sign the application and that the mother had failed to sign her request for an adjournment.

On 2 October 2003 the High Court in London resumed its examination of the case. The judge in charge of the case indicated that since his decision of May 2003 a number of documents from Romania had become available which seemed to indicate that the child’s removal from Romania by his mother was wrongful, and that, had these documents been available earlier, he would not have sought a declaration under Article 15 of the Hague Convention. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that the proceedings in Romania had commenced, and in view of the letter from the Romanian Ministry of Justice of 29 September 2003 it was decided to adjourn the proceedings to a date after 8 December 2003 (the date on which the District Court in Bucharest was to hear the case). The judge expressed concern about the time that had elapsed in the proceedings and indicated that if the 8 December hearing in Romania was not conclusive he would discharge the order he had made in May and proceed to adjudication.

On 31 October 2003 the mother submitted her observations concerning the applicant’s actions in the Romanian proceedings and introduced a counter-action seeking, inter alia, a ruling that the applicant did not have a right of custody over the child and that he did not have the right to decide on the child’s place of domicile.

On 8 December 2003 the District Court in Bucharest adjourned the hearing at the applicant’s request so that he could examine the mother’s observations and the counter-action lodged by her. On the same date the two actions lodged by the applicant and the mother’s counter-action were joined.

On 19 December 2003 the judge at the High Court in London, having learned that the final determination of the case before the Romanian court had yet again been put back, made an order that the final hearing in London should take place “as a matter of urgency” in January 2004.

On 5 January 2004 the District Court in Bucharest adopted a final ruling in the case and declared inadmissible the applicant’s actions without entering into the merits of the case. It decided not to examine the mother’s counter-action. Both parties appealed against the judgment.

On 14 January 2004 the proceedings in London were adjourned at the request of the parties to 1 March 2004 to allow time for receipt of the written reasons from the Romanian court.

On 20 January 2004 the District Court in Bucharest delivered its judgment and on 3 and 5 February the parties appealed against it.

On 6 February 2004 the case file was transmitted by the District Court to the Bucharest Court of Appeal and the latter fixed 6 April as the date of the hearing in the case.

On 23 February 2004 the applicant requested the Bucharest Court of Appeal to speed up the proceedings in view of the proceedings pending in London. His request was granted and the date of the hearing was set for 16 March 2004.

On 1 March 2004 the applicant applied for an adjournment in the High Court proceedings in London pending determination of the case by the Bucharest Court of Appeal. His request was granted and the judge in charge of the case ordered that the final hearing should take place as soon as possible after receipt of an authorised translation of the decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal.

On 15 March 2004 the mother filed her observations with the Bucharest Court of Appeal.

On 16 March 2004 the applicant’s representative requested an adjournment from the Bucharest Court of Appeal in order to study the mother’s observations.

On 11 May 2004 the Bucharest Court of Appeal held a hearing in the case and heard submissions from the parties. The pronouncement of the judgment was adjourned to 25 May 2004.

On 25 May 2004 the Fourth Section of the Bucharest Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the first-instance court in part. It examined the applicant’s action on the merits and dismissed it as ill-founded, finding that the applicant did not have custody rights over the child and that the child’s removal from Romania was legal under domestic law and not wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was communicated to the parties on 19 July 2004.

On 3 August 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation (Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie) against the judgment of the Bucharest Court of Appeal.

On 16 August 2004 the case file was sent by the Bucharest Court of Appeal to the Court of Cassation of Romania.

On three occasions between November 2004 and March 2005 the applicant lodged requests with the Court of Cassation asking it for a speedier examination of his case on grounds of the urgency of the matter.

It appears that during that period the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure was undergoing changes and that it was not clear which court was competent under the new rules to examine the applicant’s appeal on points of law. On 16 March 2005 the Court of Cassation declined jurisdiction in favour of the Bucharest Court of Appeal and on 28 March the case file was sent back to that court.

The Bucharest Court of Appeal scheduled the first hearing in the case for 16 June 2005.

On 13 May 2005 the applicant requested that the proceedings be speeded up in view of an upcoming hearing in the London proceedings. On 19 May the applicant’s request was upheld and the hearing was rescheduled for 26 May 2005.

On 26 May 2005 the Third Section of the Bucharest Court of Appeal held a hearing; however, it decided to adjourn the proceedings to 9 June 2005.

On 9 June 2005 the Court of Appeal resumed the examination of the case and dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It found, inter alia, that, under Romanian family law, after divorce the parents of a child do not have equal rights in respect of their child. In particular, the parent who has custody of the child does not need the consent of the other parent in respect of measures concerning the child except for matters relating to adoption and/or losing or re-obtaining Romanian nationality. The parent who does not enjoy custody cannot veto a decision of the other parent concerning the child’s domicile. Accordingly, the removal of the child from Romania by the mother was lawful under Romanian law.

In July 2005, after the Romanian proceedings had ended and the final Romanian judgment had become available in English, the High Court in London resumed its proceedings and listed the case for a final hearing on 3 and 4 August 2005.

On 1 August 2005 the judge in charge of the case at the High Court in London acceded to the applicant’s application for an expert opinion on the law of Romania. The expert was to file his report by 16 September 2005.

Both parties agreed to instruct Dr Mihai to draft a report on Romanian family law and on 14 September 2005 the High Court confirmed the joint instructions to the expert and the time for lodging of the expert report was extended to 7 October 2005 with the final hearing listed for 14 October 2005.

On 28 September 2005 the High Court in London extended the time-limit for the expert report to 11 October and relisted the case for 31 October 2005.

The expert’s report was ready on 11 October 2005; however, the parties wished to put more questions to him. Therefore, on 31 October 2005, on an application from the applicant, the court adjourned the proceedings to 8 December 2005 and made further procedural directions in relation to any further questions to be put to the expert.

On 8 December 2005 the final hearing was listed before the High Court in London for 28 February and 1 March 2006.

On 28 February and 1 March 2006 the High Court held the final hearings in the case and gave judgment on 28 March 2006. The court found in favour of the applicant, choosing to rely on the expert opinion and to disregard the decisions of the Romanian courts. It found that the applicant had custody rights within the meaning of Article 5 of the Hague Convention and that therefore the child’s removal from Romania had been wrongful under Article 3 of the same Convention. The court also rejected an objection based on Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention raised by the mother and issued an order for the return of the child to Romania.

On 7 April 2006 the mother sought leave to appeal. This was granted on 10 April 2006 and the case was fixed for hearing in the Court of Appeal on 25 May 2006.

On 25 May 2006 the Court of Appeal heard and dismissed the mother’s appeal while varying the order for the peremptory return of the child until the end of the school term.

The mother appealed to the House of Lords. Her appeal was heard between 9 and 11 October 2006 and on 16 November 2006 the House of Lords gave judgment allowing the appeal. The House of Lords reversed the judgment of the High Court, finding that the applicant did not have custody rights within the meaning of Article 5 of the Hague Convention and that therefore the child’s removal from Romania was not wrongful under Article 3 of the same Convention. The House of Lords criticised the decision of the High Court to seek a further expert opinion after having obtained a final decision on the matter from the Romanian courts and expressed regret about the length of the proceedings.

Lord Hope of Craighead observed, inter alia, that: “Article 15 of the Convention contemplates that the court may need to be provided with a determination from the authorities of the state of the child’s habitual residence that the removal was wrongful. So a judge is not to be criticised if he decides to use this procedure because he cannot responsibly resolve the issue on the information provided by the applicant. Nevertheless if he decides on this course delay will be inevitable. Great care must therefore be taken, in the child’s best interests, to keep this to the absolute minimum. The misfortunes that have beset this case show that, once the court has received the response, it should strive to treat the information which it receives as determinative. In this case the response that was received from Romania was sufficient to show that the child’s removal was not wrongful within the meaning of article 3. On 9 June 2005 the final Court of Appeal of Bucharest, upholding the court of first appeal, stated in the clearest terms that, under the law as it then stood in Romania, termination of marriage through divorce brings joint custody to an end, that cases where the agreement of the parties is required about a measure which the parent with custody proposes are limited, and that none of the rights that the father had been granted on divorce gave him a right of veto or to decide the child’s place of residence. It is wholly understandable that the father should feel aggrieved by what has happened in this case. The effect on his ability to exercise his rights of access is plain to see. But the phrase “rights of custody” has been given a particular definition by the Convention. It is only if there has been a breach of rights of custody as so defined that the removal can be described as wrongful for its purposes. The information provided by the Romanian court shows that, as the law stood at the time of the child’s removal, the father had no such rights.”

Baroness Hale of Richmond commented, inter alia, that: “...the Bucharest Court of Appeal concluded that the removal of the child in December 2002 had not been wrongful... How then should the courts of the requested state respond to such a determination? Most certainly not as they did in this case. Having received a determination, binding between the parties, in the final court of the requesting state, the English High Court proceeded in effect to allow the father to challenge that ruling by adducing fresh expert evidence. The fact that the expert was jointly instructed does not cure the vice.”

Lord Carswell stated that: “It was quite wrong to permit the father to adduce further expert evidence from Dr Mihai which challenged not only the conclusion but the statement of the content of the father’s rights set out in the judgment of the Romanian court. The English court should have considered the terms of the judgment itself, without any subsequently obtained expert evidence. If it had done so it could only have come to the same conclusion as the Romanian court, even without applying any presumption in its favour.”

Lord Brown commented as follows: “This is an extraordinary case. It is, we are told, unique in the length of time which elapsed before the judge’s order for the child’s summary return to Romania (over three years after the commencement of Hague Convention proceedings); and unique too in being the only case in which a United Kingdom court has rejected a foreign court’s article 15 determination that the child’s removal was not in the event wrongful within the meaning of article 3... In circumstances like these it seems to me almost inconceivable that the court requesting the article 15 determination would then not simply accept it. Certainly there would need to be some compelling reason to reject it such as a flagrant breach of the rules of natural justice in the foreign judicial process or a manifest misdirection as to the autonomous meaning of the Convention term “rights of custody”. There is nothing of that sort here. On the contrary, the judge - neither Johnson J (who had requested the determination) nor Hogg J (who later ordered the child’s return to Romania) - on 1 August 2005, acting merely on the father’s request, ordered that an expert in Romanian law be jointly instructed by both parties to cover exactly the same ground as the Romanian Appeal Courts had themselves just covered...”

Throughout the entire proceedings in the United Kingdom the applicant was allowed to meet his child on a number of occasions in special contact centres for periods not exceeding two hours. According to him, however, over the last four years he has only been able to spend about thirty hours with his son.

It does not appear that the applicant ever applied to the United Kingdom courts in order to obtain a judgment from them giving him access to the child. However, on an unspecified date in 2007 he applied to the High Court in London for the recognition of the Romanian judgment of November 2000 (see paragraph 7 above). The Court is not aware of the outcome of those proceedings.

II. RELEVANT NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

The relevant provisions of the Romanian Family Code read as follows: Article 43

The divorced parent who was entrusted with the child shall exercise the parental rights...

The divorced parent, who was not entrusted with the child, keeps the right to have personal ties with the child, as well as to observe his or her bringing up, education, studies and professional instruction.

The relevant provisions of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction provide: Article 3 “The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where – a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention. The rights of custody mentioned in sub-paragraph a above, may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State.” Article 5 “For the purposes of this Convention – a) ’rights of custody’ shall include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child’s place of residence; b) ’rights of access’ shall include the right to take a child for a limited period of time to a place other than the child’s habitual residence.” Article 7 “Central Authorities shall co-operate with each other and promote co-operation amongst the competent authorities in their respective States to secure the prompt return of children and to achieve the other objects of this Convention. In particular, either directly or through any intermediary, they shall take all appropriate measures - a) to discover the whereabouts of a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained; b) to prevent further harm to the child or prejudice to interested parties by taking or causing to be taken provisional measures; c) to secure the voluntary return of the child or to bring about an amicable resolution of the issues; d) to exchange, where desirable, information relating to the social background of the child; e) to provide information of a general character as to the law of their State in connection with the application of the Convention; f) to initiate or facilitate the institution of judicial or administrative proceedings with a view to obtaining the return of the child and, in a proper case, to make arrangements for organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of access; g) where the circumstances so require, to provide or facilitate the provision of legal aid and advice, including the participation of legal counsel and advisers; h) to provide such administrative arrangements as may be necessary and appropriate to secure the safe return of the child; i) to keep other each other informed with respect to the operation of this Convention and, as far as possible, to eliminate any obstacles to its application.” Article 8 “Any person, institution or other body claiming that a child has been removed or retained in breach of custody rights may apply either to the Central Authority of the child’s habitual residence or to the Central Authority of any other Contracting State for assistance in securing the return of the child...” Article 10 “The Central Authority of the State where the child is shall take or cause to be taken all appropriate measures in order to obtain the voluntary return of the child.” Article 11 “The judicial or administrative authorities of Contracting States shall act expeditiously in proceedings for the return of children. If the judicial or administrative authority concerned has not reached a decision within six weeks from the date of commencement of the proceedings, the applicant or the Central Authority of the requested State, on its own initiative or if asked by the Central Authority of the requesting State, shall have the right to request a statement of the reasons for the delay. If a reply is received by the Central Authority of the requested State, that Authority shall transmit the reply to the Central Authority of the requesting State, or to the applicant, as the case may be.” Article 13 “Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that – a) the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal of retention; or b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views. In considering the circumstances referred to in this Article, the judicial and administrative authorities shall take into account the information relating to the social background of the child provided by the Central Authority or other competent authority of the child’s habitual residence.” Article 15 “The judicial or administrative authorities of a Contracting State may, prior to the making of an order for the return of the child, request that the applicant obtain from the authorities of the State of the habitual residence of the child a decision or other determination that the removal or retention was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention, where such a decision or determination may be obtained in that State. The Central Authorities of the Contracting States shall so far as practicable assist applicants to obtain such a decision or determination.” Article 21 “An application to make arrangements for organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of access may be presented to the Central Authorities of the Contracting States in the same way as an application for the return of a child. The Central Authorities are bound by the obligations of co-operation which are set forth in Article 7 to promote the peaceful enjoyment of access rights and the fulfilment of any conditions to which the exercise of those rights may be subject. The Central Authorities shall take steps to remove, as far as possible, all obstacles to the exercise of such rights. The Central Authorities, either directly or through intermediaries, may initiate or assist in the institution of proceedings with a view to organizing or protecting these rights and securing respect for the conditions to which the exercise of these rights may be subject.”
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e1
001-86729_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
19055/05
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em2
ORG
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-86729_a8_e3
001-86729_a8_em3
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em4
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e5
001-86729_a8_em5
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Andrei Deak
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e6
001-86729_a8_em6
DATETIME
QUASI
24 May 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e7
001-86729_a8_em7
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Diana-Elena Dragomir
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e8
001-86729_a8_em8
LOC
QUASI
Bucharest
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e9
001-86729_a8_em9
ORG
QUASI
Romanian Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e10
001-86729_a8_em10
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Ruxandra Pasoi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-86729_a8_e3
001-86729_a8_em11
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e11
001-86729_a8_em12
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Emily Willmott
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e12
001-86729_a8_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
16 March 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e5
001-86729_a8_em14
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Andrei Deak
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em15
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e13
001-86729_a8_em16
DATETIME
QUASI
1956
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e8
001-86729_a8_em17
LOC
QUASI
Bucharest
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e14
001-86729_a8_em18
PERSON
QUASI
C.D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em19
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e15
001-86729_a8_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
January 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e16
001-86729_a8_em21
DATETIME
QUASI
July 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e17
001-86729_a8_em22
PERSON
QUASI
C.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e18
001-86729_a8_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e19
001-86729_a8_em24
DATETIME
NO_MASK
82 days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e20
001-86729_a8_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e21
001-86729_a8_em26
LOC
NO_MASK
England
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-86729_a8_e22
001-86729_a8_em27
DEM
QUASI
Master degree in Business and Administration
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em28
LOC
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e23
001-86729_a8_em29
DATETIME
QUASI
November 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e24
001-86729_a8_em30
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em31
ORG
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e25
001-86729_a8_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
23 December 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e26
001-86729_a8_em33
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em34
LOC
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e3
001-86729_a8_em35
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e27
001-86729_a8_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
January 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e28
001-86729_a8_em37
DATETIME
QUASI
6 February 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e26
001-86729_a8_em38
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e29
001-86729_a8_em39
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e30
001-86729_a8_em40
ORG
NO_MASK
Family Division
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e31
001-86729_a8_em41
DATETIME
QUASI
25 October 1980
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e24
001-86729_a8_em42
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e32
001-86729_a8_em43
DATETIME
QUASI
27 February 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em44
LOC
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em45
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e33
001-86729_a8_em46
DATETIME
QUASI
11 April 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e33
001-86729_a8_em47
DATETIME
QUASI
11 April 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e34
001-86729_a8_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
9 May 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e35
001-86729_a8_em49
ORG
QUASI
Romanian President’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e36
001-86729_a8_em50
ORG
NO_MASK
Child Protection Authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-86729_a8_e37
001-86729_a8_em51
DEM
NO_MASK
Ombudsman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em52
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em53
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e38
001-86729_a8_em54
DATETIME
QUASI
11 June 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e39
001-86729_a8_em55
ORG
QUASI
Bucharest Third District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em56
LOC
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e40
001-86729_a8_em57
DATETIME
QUASI
16 July 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e41
001-86729_a8_em58
DATETIME
QUASI
1 September 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e42
001-86729_a8_em59
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e43
001-86729_a8_em60
DATETIME
QUASI
8 December 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e44
001-86729_a8_em61
DATETIME
QUASI
29 September 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e45
001-86729_a8_em62
ORG
QUASI
Romanian Ministry of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e26
001-86729_a8_em63
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em64
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e46
001-86729_a8_em65
DATETIME
QUASI
30 September 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e42
001-86729_a8_em66
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e8
001-86729_a8_em67
LOC
QUASI
Bucharest
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e47
001-86729_a8_em68
DATETIME
QUASI
2 October 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e26
001-86729_a8_em69
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e48
001-86729_a8_em70
DATETIME
QUASI
May 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em71
LOC
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em72
LOC
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em73
LOC
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e45
001-86729_a8_em74
ORG
QUASI
Romanian Ministry of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e44
001-86729_a8_em75
DATETIME
QUASI
29 September 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e43
001-86729_a8_em76
DATETIME
QUASI
8 December 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e42
001-86729_a8_em77
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e8
001-86729_a8_em78
LOC
QUASI
Bucharest
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e49
001-86729_a8_em79
DATETIME
QUASI
8 December
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em80
LOC
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e50
001-86729_a8_em81
DATETIME
NO_MASK
May
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e51
001-86729_a8_em82
DATETIME
QUASI
31 October 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em83
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e43
001-86729_a8_em84
DATETIME
QUASI
8 December 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e42
001-86729_a8_em85
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e8
001-86729_a8_em86
LOC
QUASI
Bucharest
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e52
001-86729_a8_em87
DATETIME
QUASI
19 December 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e26
001-86729_a8_em88
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em89
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e26
001-86729_a8_em90
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e53
001-86729_a8_em91
DATETIME
QUASI
January 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e54
001-86729_a8_em92
DATETIME
QUASI
5 January 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e42
001-86729_a8_em93
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e8
001-86729_a8_em94
LOC
QUASI
Bucharest
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e55
001-86729_a8_em95
DATETIME
QUASI
14 January 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e26
001-86729_a8_em96
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e56
001-86729_a8_em97
DATETIME
QUASI
1 March 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em98
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e57
001-86729_a8_em99
DATETIME
QUASI
20 January 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e42
001-86729_a8_em100
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e8
001-86729_a8_em101
LOC
QUASI
Bucharest
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e58
001-86729_a8_em102
DATETIME
QUASI
3 and 5 February
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e59
001-86729_a8_em103
DATETIME
QUASI
6 February 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e42
001-86729_a8_em104
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e60
001-86729_a8_em105
ORG
QUASI
Bucharest Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e61
001-86729_a8_em106
DATETIME
QUASI
6 April
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e62
001-86729_a8_em107
DATETIME
QUASI
23 February 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e60
001-86729_a8_em108
ORG
QUASI
Bucharest Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e26
001-86729_a8_em109
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e63
001-86729_a8_em110
DATETIME
QUASI
16 March 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e56
001-86729_a8_em111
DATETIME
QUASI
1 March 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e26
001-86729_a8_em112
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e60
001-86729_a8_em113
ORG
QUASI
Bucharest Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e60
001-86729_a8_em114
ORG
QUASI
Bucharest Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e64
001-86729_a8_em115
DATETIME
QUASI
15 March 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e60
001-86729_a8_em116
ORG
QUASI
Bucharest Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e63
001-86729_a8_em117
DATETIME
QUASI
16 March 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e60
001-86729_a8_em118
ORG
QUASI
Bucharest Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e65
001-86729_a8_em119
DATETIME
QUASI
11 May 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e60
001-86729_a8_em120
ORG
QUASI
Bucharest Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e66
001-86729_a8_em121
DATETIME
QUASI
25 May 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e66
001-86729_a8_em122
DATETIME
QUASI
25 May 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e67
001-86729_a8_em123
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em124
LOC
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e67
001-86729_a8_em125
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e68
001-86729_a8_em126
DATETIME
QUASI
19 July 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e69
001-86729_a8_em127
DATETIME
QUASI
3 August 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-86729_a8_e70
001-86729_a8_em128
ORG
QUASI
Court of Cassation (Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e60
001-86729_a8_em129
ORG
QUASI
Bucharest Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e71
001-86729_a8_em130
DATETIME
QUASI
16 August 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e60
001-86729_a8_em131
ORG
QUASI
Bucharest Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-86729_a8_e72
001-86729_a8_em132
ORG
QUASI
Court of Cassation of Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-86729_a8_e73
001-86729_a8_em133
DATETIME
QUASI
November 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-86729_a8_e74
001-86729_a8_em134
DATETIME
QUASI
March 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em135
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e75
001-86729_a8_em136
DATETIME
QUASI
16 March 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e60
001-86729_a8_em137
ORG
QUASI
Bucharest Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e76
001-86729_a8_em138
DATETIME
QUASI
28 March
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e60
001-86729_a8_em139
ORG
QUASI
Bucharest Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e77
001-86729_a8_em140
DATETIME
QUASI
16 June 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e78
001-86729_a8_em141
DATETIME
QUASI
13 May 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e26
001-86729_a8_em142
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-86729_a8_e79
001-86729_a8_em143
DATETIME
QUASI
19 May
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e80
001-86729_a8_em144
DATETIME
QUASI
26 May 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e80
001-86729_a8_em145
DATETIME
QUASI
26 May 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e8
001-86729_a8_em146
LOC
QUASI
Bucharest
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e67
001-86729_a8_em147
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e81
001-86729_a8_em148
DATETIME
QUASI
9 June 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e81
001-86729_a8_em149
DATETIME
QUASI
9 June 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-86729_a8_e67
001-86729_a8_em150
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em151
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em152
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em153
LOC
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em154
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e82
001-86729_a8_em155
DATETIME
QUASI
July 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em156
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em157
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e83
001-86729_a8_em158
DEM
NO_MASK
English
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e26
001-86729_a8_em159
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e84
001-86729_a8_em160
DATETIME
QUASI
3 and 4 August 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e85
001-86729_a8_em161
DATETIME
QUASI
1 August 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e26
001-86729_a8_em162
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em163
ORG
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e86
001-86729_a8_em164
DATETIME
QUASI
16 September 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e87
001-86729_a8_em165
PERSON
QUASI
Dr Mihai
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em166
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e88
001-86729_a8_em167
DATETIME
QUASI
14 September 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e89
001-86729_a8_em168
DATETIME
QUASI
7 October 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e90
001-86729_a8_em169
DATETIME
QUASI
14 October 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e91
001-86729_a8_em170
DATETIME
QUASI
28 September 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e26
001-86729_a8_em171
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e92
001-86729_a8_em172
DATETIME
QUASI
11 October
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e93
001-86729_a8_em173
DATETIME
QUASI
31 October 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e94
001-86729_a8_em174
DATETIME
QUASI
11 October 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e93
001-86729_a8_em175
DATETIME
QUASI
31 October 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e95
001-86729_a8_em176
DATETIME
QUASI
8 December 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e95
001-86729_a8_em177
DATETIME
QUASI
8 December 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e26
001-86729_a8_em178
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e96
001-86729_a8_em179
DATETIME
QUASI
28 February
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e97
001-86729_a8_em180
DATETIME
QUASI
1 March 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e96
001-86729_a8_em181
DATETIME
QUASI
28 February
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e97
001-86729_a8_em182
DATETIME
QUASI
1 March 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e98
001-86729_a8_em183
DATETIME
QUASI
28 March 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em184
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em185
LOC
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em186
ORG
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e99
001-86729_a8_em187
DATETIME
QUASI
7 April 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e100
001-86729_a8_em188
DATETIME
QUASI
10 April 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e67
001-86729_a8_em189
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e101
001-86729_a8_em190
DATETIME
QUASI
25 May 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e101
001-86729_a8_em191
DATETIME
QUASI
25 May 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e67
001-86729_a8_em192
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e102
001-86729_a8_em193
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-86729_a8_e103
001-86729_a8_em194
DATETIME
QUASI
9 and 11 October 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e104
001-86729_a8_em195
DATETIME
QUASI
16 November 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e102
001-86729_a8_em196
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e102
001-86729_a8_em197
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em198
LOC
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e102
001-86729_a8_em199
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em200
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-86729_a8_e105
001-86729_a8_em201
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Hope of Craighead
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em202
LOC
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e81
001-86729_a8_em203
DATETIME
QUASI
9 June 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e106
001-86729_a8_em204
ORG
QUASI
Court of Appeal of Bucharest
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em205
LOC
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em206
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-86729_a8_e107
001-86729_a8_em207
PERSON
QUASI
Baroness Hale of Richmond
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e60
001-86729_a8_em208
ORG
QUASI
Bucharest Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e108
001-86729_a8_em209
DATETIME
QUASI
December 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e109
001-86729_a8_em210
ORG
NO_MASK
English High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-86729_a8_e110
001-86729_a8_em211
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Carswell
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e87
001-86729_a8_em212
PERSON
QUASI
Dr Mihai
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em213
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e83
001-86729_a8_em214
DEM
NO_MASK
English
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em215
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-86729_a8_e111
001-86729_a8_em216
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Brown
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em217
ORG
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e112
001-86729_a8_em218
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e113
001-86729_a8_em219
ORG
NO_MASK
Hague Convention
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e3
001-86729_a8_em220
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e114
001-86729_a8_em221
PERSON
QUASI
Johnson J
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e115
001-86729_a8_em222
PERSON
QUASI
Hogg J
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e2
001-86729_a8_em223
ORG
QUASI
Romania
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e85
001-86729_a8_em224
DATETIME
QUASI
1 August 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em225
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e116
001-86729_a8_em226
ORG
QUASI
Romanian Appeal Courts
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e3
001-86729_a8_em227
LOC
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e117
001-86729_a8_em228
DATETIME
NO_MASK
two hours
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-86729_a8_e118
001-86729_a8_em229
DATETIME
NO_MASK
four years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-86729_a8_e119
001-86729_a8_em230
DATETIME
NO_MASK
thirty hours
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e3
001-86729_a8_em231
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e120
001-86729_a8_em232
DATETIME
QUASI
2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e26
001-86729_a8_em233
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em234
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e18
001-86729_a8_em235
DATETIME
QUASI
November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e4
001-86729_a8_em236
DEM
QUASI
Romanian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e121
001-86729_a8_em237
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-86729_a8_e121
001-86729_a8_em238
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e122
001-86729_a8_em239
DATETIME
NO_MASK
six weeks
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e121
001-86729_a8_em240
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e121
001-86729_a8_em241
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e121
001-86729_a8_em242
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e121
001-86729_a8_em243
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e121
001-86729_a8_em244
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e123
001-86729_a8_em245
ORG
QUASI
Central Authorities of the Contracting States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-86729_a8_e123
001-86729_a8_em246
ORG
QUASI
Central Authorities of the Contracting States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e124
001-86729_a8_em247
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Authorities
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-86729_a8_e124
001-86729_a8_em248
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Authorities
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-86729_a8_e124
001-86729_a8_em249
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Authorities
Andrei Deak
ROU;GBR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Andrei Deak