PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 47274/15) 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 two German nationals, Mr Ingo Hentschel and Mr Matthias Stark (“the applicants”), on 22 September 2015.

The applicants were represented by Mr M. Noli, a lawyer practising in Munich, and Ms A. Luczak, a lawyer practising in Berlin. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mr H.‑J. Behrens and Ms K. Behr, of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection.

The applicants alleged, under Article 3 of the Convention, that they had been beaten and that pepper spray had been used on them by police officers who, owing to an inadequate investigation, had been neither identified nor punished. They further complained under Article 13 that they had had no judicial remedy at their disposal to challenge the discontinuation and the ineffectiveness of the investigation.

On 26 February 2016 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The first applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Illertissen. The second applicant was born in 1989 and lives in Harburg.

A. Police operation

On 9 December 2007 both applicants went to a football match in Munich.

The police had predicted an increased risk of clashes between rival football supporters owing to confrontations at previous matches between the two teams. Therefore a total of 227 police officers were deployed, including two squads – comprising eight to ten police officers each – of the 3rd platoon of the Munich riot control unit (Unterstützungskommando), one squad of the 2nd platoon of the Munich riot control unit and the 23rd platoon of the 6th Dachau public-order support force battalion (Bereitschaftspolizei). The deployed officers of the Munich riot control unit also included “video officers”, who carried handheld video cameras and recorded videos of incidents that might be relevant under criminal law. The officers of the Munich riot control unit were dressed in black/dark blue uniforms and wore black helmets with visors. The officers of the Dachau public-order support force battalion wore green uniforms and white helmets with visors. Both uniforms did not include any name tags or other signs identifying the individual officers. However, on the back of the helmets an identification number of the squad was displayed.

After the match had ended the police cordoned off the stands of the supporters of one of the teams, including both applicants, to prevent them from leaving the stadium and encountering supporters of the other team. The cordon was lifted after around fifteen minutes.

1. The applicants’ version of the subsequent events

According to the first applicant, he left the stands after the blockade had been lifted. While walking between the exit of the stands and the exit of the football stadium a group of police officers dressed in black uniforms came running towards the exiting spectators with their truncheons raised above their heads. Some of these officers started hitting the spectators with their truncheons without any prior warning as soon as they reached them. The first applicant himself was hit with a truncheon on the head, which resulted in a bleeding laceration of 3 cm behind his ear. After having reached the exit of the stadium he was treated by a paramedic in an ambulance that was parked close to the ground. Subsequently, he returned to his home town, where he was treated in the emergency unit of the local hospital.

The second applicant also exited the stands after the blockade had been lifted. Before exiting the stadium he was grabbed by the shoulder and, after turning round, had pepper spray doused in the face at close range. He lay down on the ground and was subsequently struck on his left upper arm with a truncheon. He suffered swelling and redness of his face and pain in his arm.

Both applicants were able to identify their attackers as police officers, but were not able to distinguish them further, owing to their identical uniforms and the lack of identifying signs or name tags.

2. The Government’s version of the subsequent events

According to the Government the blockade was lifted due to the aggressive behaviour of some of the spectators and the pressure applied to the police cordon. When the supporters streamed from the stands towards the exit, they came upon police units which had been called in to provide backup for the police cordon. Subsequently some of the supporters continued their aggressive behaviour towards these officers and provoked them. The supporters’ conduct resulted in the arrest of one supporter and two police officers sustained minor injuries. After a few minutes the police pacified the situation and got the exiting supporters under control.

The Government furthermore challenged the accounts of the applicants and submitted that there was no credible evidence that the applicants had deliberately been hit or harmed by police officers and that the injuries had been a result of the police operation.

B. Investigation

As of 15 December 2007 the press reported about the police operation in the aftermath of the football match, inter alia quoting football supporters describing arbitrary attacks by police officers of the riot control unit with truncheons and pepper-spray. In an article of 18 December 2007 a spokesperson of the police commented on the operation and stated that the alleged assaults by police officers would be investigated. On 2 January 2008, the Munich public prosecutor’s office instigated a preliminary investigation. On 21 January 2008 the second applicant reported the alleged police violence and submitted a medical certificate concerning the effects of the pepper spray on his face from the same day. He filed a formal criminal complaint on 7 March 2008. The first applicant filed a criminal complaint against an unidentified police officer on 25 April 2008. He also submitted a medical certificate confirming a bleeding laceration on his head. The certificate was issued at 12.05 a.m. on 10 December 2007. Several other spectators at the match had also lodged criminal complaints against unidentified police officers.

The investigation was conducted by the unit of the Munich police responsible for offences perpetrated by public officials under the responsibility of the Munich public prosecutor’s office. The officer in charge interviewed a total of twenty witnesses, including the applicants, the officer in charge of the Munich riot control unit and the squad leaders of the deployed squads of the 2nd and 3rd Munich riot control units.

The investigating division was also provided with a DVD showing excerpts of the video surveillance recorded by the riot control police at the football match. The DVDs were compiled by the “video officers” of the Munich riot control unit. In line with their usual procedure the entire recorded video material was reviewed by the respective video officer after his or her deployment and the parts which were deemed relevant under criminal law and of sufficient quality to serve as evidence were copied to a DVD.

On 10 September 2008 the competent public prosecutor discontinued the investigation. He found that the investigation had produced evidence that some of the police officers had used truncheons against spectators, including women and children, in a disproportionate way and without an official order or approval. However, he concluded that the investigation had not led to a situation where concrete acts of violence could be related to specific police officers and it could not be ascertained either whether the use of force had been justified. In sum, the public prosecutor had been able neither to establish whether the applicants’ injuries had been inflicted by police officers nor to identify the suspects who had allegedly struck and used pepper spray on the applicants.

The applicants appealed against the decision to discontinue the investigation and argued, in particular, that the public prosecutor had only questioned the squad leaders, but had not identified all the officers involved in the operation and deployed in the area of the stadium at issue.

On 14 October 2008 the public prosecutor reopened the investigation and ordered further enquiries. On 20 October 2008 the head of the investigation unit met with the platoon leaders of the Munich riot control unit and other division heads of the Munich police to discuss the investigation. Neither the public prosecutor nor the applicants’ representative attended the internal police meeting. Subsequently, a further twenty-two witnesses were interviewed including fourteen platoon leaders, squad leaders and video officers of the deployed police units. The individual squad members of the three squads of the Munich riot control unit were not interviewed. The applicants had requested that they be interviewed, as the evidence had suggested that the alleged perpetrators had belonged to one of these three squads.

The investigating police unit was also provided with video surveillance recorded by the 23rd platoon of the 6th Dachau public-order support force battalion. Upon the request of the applicants to secure the entire video material of the police operation, and not only the already submitted video excerpts, it was established that the original video tapes and possible digital copies had already been deleted and that only the excerpts were still available.

On 4 August 2009 the public prosecutor discontinued the investigation again. In a detailed fifteen-page decision he first summarised the investigative measures taken, referring in particular to the interviews of several witnesses, including police officers and the alleged victims, the review of video material from the police and from the internet, the assessment of the applicants’ written observations and of the submitted documents, inter alia, medical certificates, as well as gathered information and reports on past events and applicable guidelines. After assessing all the available evidence, the public prosecutor concluded that the enquiries had shown that several supporters had aggressively approached, insulted and provoked the deployed police officers and that therefore a situation had existed in which the officers could have been justified in using their truncheons. Besides this general conclusion he held that the applicants had neither been able to identify a particular suspect nor to determine whether the suspected police officers had been male or female and that the investigation had not produced other persons who had witnessed the alleged acts against the applicants. Furthermore, he outlined in detail certain “considerable discrepancies” in the witness statements of the first applicant and referred to “unspecific” statements of the second applicant. Consequently, according to the public prosecutor, there was insufficient evidence to establish criminal conduct by specific police officers to the detriment of both applicants. He concluded that the investigation had to be discontinued again, since the considerable additional investigative measures had not revealed disproportionate conduct on the part of individual police officers, in particular truncheon strikes against innocent bystanders, which would require criminal prosecution of the respective officers.

On 20 August 2009 the applicants appealed and pointed out that the members of the deployed squads had still not been questioned and that the inspected videos were fragmentary, but nonetheless contradicted certain parts of the statements made by the squad leaders.

On 3 February 2011 the Munich general public prosecutor confirmed the decision of the public prosecutor’s office of 4 August 2009 to discontinue the investigation. The instructions on available legal remedies attached to the decision informed the applicants that they could request a judicial decision in the framework of proceedings to force criminal proceedings (Klageerzwingungsverfahren).

C. Court proceedings

On 19 September 2011 the Munich Court of Appeal declared the applicants’ application to force further enquiries inadmissible. The court interpreted the applicants’ request as an application to force criminal proceedings (Klageerzwingungsantrag) and held that these proceedings were only admissible if the prosecution of one or more identified accused had been requested. An application to force criminal proceedings against an unidentified accused had to be declared inadmissible, since the proceedings were not supposed to identify the accused or replace investigations. Only in a case where a public prosecutor’s office had entirely refrained from investigating a crime had a court the possibility to order an investigation. Under Article 173 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung – hereinafter “the CCP”; see paragraph 37 below) a court was only allowed to conduct minor enquiries to fill in remaining gaps in an investigation. Moreover, the applicants had not submitted specific facts or evidence that would have allowed the court to identify an accused.

On 25 October 2011 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint, relying on Articles 2 § 2, 19 § 4 and 103 § 1 of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz) (see paragraphs 29-31 below). Besides referring to articles of the Basic Law, the applicants also referred in their complaint to Articles 2, 3, and 13 of the Convention. In essence they complained that the investigation had not been effective and that the Court of Appeal had not evaluated the effectiveness of the investigation.

On 23 March 2015 the Federal Constitutional Court (hereinafter “the Constitutional Court”) refused, in a reasoned decision (2 BvR 1304/12), to admit the applicants’ constitutional complaint. The court held that the investigations had been conducted diligently, but had not established sufficient suspicion of criminal conduct on the part of specific police officers. Moreover, the remaining gaps and factual uncertainties could not be attributed to omissions in the investigation. The court also found that it had not been necessary to question all the squad members who had possibly been involved. In its decision the Constitutional Court referred to the Court’s case-law concerning the procedural obligation of Article 2 of the Convention and, in particular, to the cases of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (27 September 1995, Series A no. 324) and Grams v. Germany ((dec.), no. 33677/96, ECHR 1999‑VII). The court also emphasised that the public prosecutor’s office had been the responsible authority for the investigation and thereby “master of the proceedings” (Herr des Verfahrens).

D. Other investigations

During the investigation the applicants also filed criminal complaints in respect of assistance given in an official capacity in avoiding prosecution or punishment (Strafvereitelung im Amt) and suppression of evidence (Beweismittelunterdrückung). The applicants alleged that several relevant parts of the video material, showing disproportionate police violence, had been deleted. The investigation against the five police officers was discontinued by the Munich public prosecutor’s office.

A subsequent appeal before the Munich general public prosecutor was to no avail.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e1
001-178381_a11_em1
CODE
DIRECT
47274/15
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-178381_a11_e2
001-178381_a11_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Republic of Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e2
001-178381_a11_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e3
001-178381_a11_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Ingo Hentschel
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e4
001-178381_a11_em5
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Matthias Stark
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e5
001-178381_a11_em6
DATETIME
QUASI
22 September 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e6
001-178381_a11_em7
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M. Noli
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e7
001-178381_a11_em8
LOC
QUASI
Munich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e8
001-178381_a11_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Ms A. Luczak
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e9
001-178381_a11_em10
LOC
NO_MASK
Berlin
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e2
001-178381_a11_em11
DEM
NO_MASK
001-178381_a11_em2
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e2
001-178381_a11_em12
ORG
NO_MASK
001-178381_a11_em2
German Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e2
001-178381_a11_em13
ORG
NO_MASK
001-178381_a11_em2
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e10
001-178381_a11_em14
PERSON
QUASI
Mr H.‑J. Behrens
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e11
001-178381_a11_em15
PERSON
QUASI
Ms K. Behr
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e12
001-178381_a11_em16
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e13
001-178381_a11_em17
MISC
QUASI
pepper spray
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e14
001-178381_a11_em18
DATETIME
QUASI
26 February 2016
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e2
001-178381_a11_em19
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e15
001-178381_a11_em20
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1969
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e16
001-178381_a11_em21
LOC
QUASI
Illertissen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e17
001-178381_a11_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e18
001-178381_a11_em23
LOC
QUASI
Harburg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e19
001-178381_a11_em24
DATETIME
QUASI
9 December 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e7
001-178381_a11_em25
LOC
QUASI
Munich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e20
001-178381_a11_em26
QUANTITY
QUASI
227 police officers
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e21
001-178381_a11_em27
ORG
QUASI
3rd platoon of the Munich riot control unit
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e7
001-178381_a11_em28
LOC
QUASI
Munich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-178381_a11_e22
001-178381_a11_em29
ORG
QUASI
Unterstützungskommando
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e23
001-178381_a11_em30
ORG
QUASI
2nd platoon of the Munich riot control uni
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e7
001-178381_a11_em31
LOC
QUASI
Munich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e24
001-178381_a11_em32
ORG
QUASI
23rd platoon of the 6th Dachau public-order support force battalion
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-178381_a11_e25
001-178381_a11_em33
LOC
QUASI
Dachau
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e26
001-178381_a11_em34
ORG
QUASI
Bereitschaftspolizei
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e7
001-178381_a11_em35
LOC
QUASI
Munich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e7
001-178381_a11_em36
LOC
QUASI
Munich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e25
001-178381_a11_em37
LOC
QUASI
Dachau
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e27
001-178381_a11_em38
ORG
QUASI
Dachau public-order support force battalion
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e28
001-178381_a11_em39
DATETIME
QUASI
around fifteen minutes
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e29
001-178381_a11_em40
MISC
QUASI
truncheons
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e29
001-178381_a11_em41
MISC
QUASI
truncheons
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e30
001-178381_a11_em42
MISC
QUASI
truncheon
HEALTH
insert
001-178381_a11_e31
001-178381_a11_em43
DEM
QUASI
bleeding laceration
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e32
001-178381_a11_em44
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
3 cm
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e13
001-178381_a11_em45
MISC
QUASI
pepper spray
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e30
001-178381_a11_em46
MISC
QUASI
truncheon
HEALTH
insert
001-178381_a11_e33
001-178381_a11_em47
DEM
QUASI
swelling
HEALTH
insert
001-178381_a11_e34
001-178381_a11_em48
DEM
QUASI
redness of his face
HEALTH
insert
001-178381_a11_e35
001-178381_a11_em49
DEM
QUASI
pain in his arm
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e2
001-178381_a11_em50
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e2
001-178381_a11_em51
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e36
001-178381_a11_em52
DEM
QUASI
minor injuries
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e37
001-178381_a11_em53
DATETIME
NO_MASK
few minutes
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e2
001-178381_a11_em54
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e38
001-178381_a11_em55
DATETIME
QUASI
15 December 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e39
001-178381_a11_em56
ORG
QUASI
riot control unit
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e29
001-178381_a11_em57
MISC
QUASI
truncheons
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e40
001-178381_a11_em58
MISC
QUASI
pepper-spray
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e41
001-178381_a11_em59
DATETIME
QUASI
18 December 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e42
001-178381_a11_em60
DATETIME
QUASI
2 January 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e7
001-178381_a11_em61
LOC
QUASI
Munich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e43
001-178381_a11_em62
ORG
QUASI
Munich public prosecutor’s office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e44
001-178381_a11_em63
DATETIME
QUASI
21 January 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e13
001-178381_a11_em64
MISC
QUASI
pepper spray
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e45
001-178381_a11_em65
DATETIME
QUASI
7 March 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e46
001-178381_a11_em66
DATETIME
QUASI
25 April 2008
HEALTH
check
001-178381_a11_e31
001-178381_a11_em67
DEM
QUASI
bleeding laceration
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e47
001-178381_a11_em68
DATETIME
NO_MASK
12.05 a.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e48
001-178381_a11_em69
DATETIME
QUASI
10 December 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e7
001-178381_a11_em70
LOC
QUASI
Munich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e49
001-178381_a11_em71
ORG
QUASI
Munich police
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e7
001-178381_a11_em72
LOC
QUASI
Munich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e43
001-178381_a11_em73
ORG
QUASI
Munich public prosecutor’s office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e50
001-178381_a11_em74
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
twenty witnesses
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e7
001-178381_a11_em75
LOC
QUASI
Munich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e23
001-178381_a11_em76
ORG
NO_MASK
001-178381_a11_em30
2nd
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e21
001-178381_a11_em77
ORG
QUASI
001-178381_a11_em27
3rd Munich riot control unit
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e7
001-178381_a11_em78
LOC
QUASI
Munich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e51
001-178381_a11_em79
ORG
QUASI
Munich riot control unit
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e52
001-178381_a11_em80
DATETIME
QUASI
10 September 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e29
001-178381_a11_em81
MISC
QUASI
truncheons
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e13
001-178381_a11_em82
MISC
QUASI
pepper spray
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e53
001-178381_a11_em83
DATETIME
QUASI
14 October 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e54
001-178381_a11_em84
DATETIME
QUASI
20 October 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e7
001-178381_a11_em85
LOC
QUASI
Munich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e55
001-178381_a11_em86
ORG
QUASI
Munich riot control
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-178381_a11_e7
001-178381_a11_em87
LOC
QUASI
Munich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e49
001-178381_a11_em88
ORG
QUASI
Munich police
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e7
001-178381_a11_em89
LOC
QUASI
Munich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e24
001-178381_a11_em90
ORG
QUASI
23rd platoon of the 6th Dachau public-order support force battalion
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e25
001-178381_a11_em91
LOC
QUASI
Dachau
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e56
001-178381_a11_em92
DATETIME
QUASI
4 August 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e29
001-178381_a11_em93
MISC
QUASI
truncheons
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e30
001-178381_a11_em94
MISC
QUASI
truncheon
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e57
001-178381_a11_em95
DATETIME
QUASI
20 August 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e58
001-178381_a11_em96
DATETIME
QUASI
3 February 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e59
001-178381_a11_em97
ORG
QUASI
Munich general public prosecutor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e60
001-178381_a11_em98
ORG
NO_MASK
public prosecutor’s office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e56
001-178381_a11_em99
DATETIME
QUASI
4 August 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e61
001-178381_a11_em100
DATETIME
QUASI
19 September 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e62
001-178381_a11_em101
ORG
QUASI
Munich Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e60
001-178381_a11_em102
ORG
NO_MASK
public prosecutor’s office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e63
001-178381_a11_em103
DATETIME
QUASI
25 October 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e64
001-178381_a11_em104
DATETIME
QUASI
23 March 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e65
001-178381_a11_em105
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e65
001-178381_a11_em106
ORG
NO_MASK
001-178381_a11_em105
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e66
001-178381_a11_em107
CODE
DIRECT
1304/12
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e65
001-178381_a11_em108
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e67
001-178381_a11_em109
MISC
NO_MASK
McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e68
001-178381_a11_em110
DATETIME
QUASI
27 September 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e69
001-178381_a11_em111
CODE
NO_MASK
324
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e70
001-178381_a11_em112
MISC
NO_MASK
Grams v. Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e71
001-178381_a11_em113
CODE
NO_MASK
33677/96
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e60
001-178381_a11_em114
ORG
NO_MASK
public prosecutor’s office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e7
001-178381_a11_em115
LOC
QUASI
Munich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e60
001-178381_a11_em116
ORG
NO_MASK
public prosecutor’s office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-178381_a11_e7
001-178381_a11_em117
LOC
QUASI
Munich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-178381_a11_e59
001-178381_a11_em118
ORG
QUASI
Munich general public prosecutor
Ingo Hentschel
DEU
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Ingo Hentschel