You are here:

Key facts of the case:

A retired professor received a decision (11 February 2015; received on 17 February 2015) by the Viennese education authority which set her advance date for the usage group L1 on 28 February 1973. With decision of 22 July 2015 the before mentioned decision was repealed. The party represented the legal opinion that the same legal situation, as it was the case on 11 February 2015 with the version BGBl. I Nr. 32/2015, would also apply for delivery of the decision on 17 February. The party argued that the decision of 11 Feburary 2015 violated § 113 Gehaltsgesetz (GehG). The party filed a complaint against the decision of 22 July 2015 to the Federal Administrative Court. The mentioned decision  was repealed, but a revison to the Highest Administrative Court was declared inadmissible. The party then filed an ‘extraordinary revision’ to the Highest Administrative Court, which was however rejected due to the lack of requirements of Art133 (4) B-VG.

As for the presented case, the relevant legal norms are: Art133 (4) of the Federal Constitution (Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz, B-VG) ; §68 (2) General Administrative Proecdures Act 1991 (Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz 1991, AVG) ; §13 (1) Service law procedural act 1984 (Dienstrechtsverfahrensgesetz 1984, DVG 1984) ; §§ 12, 13, 113 (10) and 169c (2) Salary Act 1956 (Gehaltsgesetz 1956, GehG) ; Art6 ECHR; Art34 (1) Administrative Court Act 1985 (Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz 1985, VwGG) ; Artt 2 and 9 Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.

Key legal questions comprise the applicability of law, the relevant legal situation, the relationship between provisions and Union law, partial non-application of national law and primacy of Union law.

Outcome of the case:

The party’s ‘extraordinary revision’ was rejected due to the lack of requirements of Art133 (4) B-VG.