4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Prague. She is the owner of some 3,000 hectares of forest situated in Pöls. 5.  By decision of 13 July 1998 the Styria Regional Health Insurance Board (Gebietskrankenkasse) ordered the applicant to pay surcharges on social security contributions amounting to 960,500 Austrian schillings (ATS), equivalent to 69,802 euros (EUR). Referring to an investigation into the payment of contributions (Beitragsprüfung) carried out in March 1998, it found that the applicant had, in 105 cases, failed to comply with her obligation to register employees with the social security system. 6.  The applicant filed an objection (Einspruch) on 12 August 1998, arguing that it had not yet been established that the persons concerned were subject to compulsory insurance. She submitted that the persons concerned were not employees but limited partners in the von Pezold limited partnership (Kommanditgesellschaft). Finally, she argued that the amount of the surcharges was excessive. 7.  On 22 September 1998 the Regional Health Insurance Board issued a decision with the following content:
Point I: contained a retroactive finding of compulsory insurance in respect of 41 persons. The Health Insurance Board found it established that these persons had been the applicant's employees within the meaning of section 4 of the General Social Security Act (Allgemeines Sozial‑versicherungsgesetz) at specified periods between 1993 and 1996. Referring to the file concerning the investigation into the payment of contributions which had been carried out between November 1997 and March 1998, the file concerning investigations (Betriebsprüfung) by the Judenburg Tax Office and the results of a salary tax investigation (Lohnsteuerprüfung) by the tax authorities, the Regional Health Insurance Board held that the von Pezold limited partnership was a sham company, aimed at concealing the fact that the workers were in reality employed by the applicant.
Point II: ordered the applicant to pay arrears in social security contributions in the amount of some 4 million ATS (about EUR 293,000) for the above-mentioned employees. 8.  The applicant filed an objection against the decision on 22 October 1998, challenging the finding of compulsory insurance. She complained in particular that she had not been given an opportunity to submit her arguments and that the Regional Health Insurance Board had failed to establish relevant facts concerning the question whether or not the persons concerned worked in a relationship of personal and economic dependency, as required by section 4 of the General Social Security Act. In that connection she requested to hear Mr S., her forest administrator, Mr von Pezold, who had participated in running her forestry operation, and Mr K. as witnesses. 9.  Subsequently, the proceedings concerning the surcharges on social security contributions fixed by the decision of 13 July 1998 and the proceedings concerning the payment of arrears in social security contributions fixed in point II of the decision of 22 September 1998 were suspended, pending the decision on the question whether or not the persons concerned were subject to compulsory insurance. According to the Government, the applicant agreed to the suspension of these two sets of proceedings. 10.  On 17 October 2001 the Styria Regional Governor held a hearing on site, at the applicant's property in Pöls. 11.  According to the minutes of the hearing, which were issued on 12 April 2002, the following persons were present: an official of the Office of the Regional Government conducting the hearing, a representative of the Regional Heath Insurance Board, the applicant's counsel, Mr von Pezold, Mr S., Mr W. and Mr K. The minutes contain a summary of facts and some legal considerations. No witness statements are recorded, and the minutes contain no decision on the applicant's request to hear witnesses. 12.  The applicant lodged an objection against the minutes, arguing in particular that they were not written in due form and did not make it clear whether or not witnesses were heard and, if so, what statements they made. 13.  The Styria Regional Governor did not take a decision on the applicant's objection against the decision of 22 September 1998 (point I) within the statutory six-month time-limit. 14.  On 15 November 2002 the applicant filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) with the Federal Minister for Social Security, Generations and Consumer Protection. The Minister did not take a decision within the statutory six-month time-limit. 15.  The applicant filed an application under Article 131 of the Federal Constitution against the administration's failure to decide (Säumnisbeschwerde). On 24 June 2003 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) granted the application, ordering the Federal Minister to issue a decision within three months. 16.  Subsequently, on 12 August 2003, the Federal Minister dismissed the applicant's objection against the Regional Health Insurance Board's decision of 22 September 1998 (point I), confirming that the workers concerned were subject to compulsory insurance. It referred in detail to the different files on which the Regional Health Insurance Board had relied and in particular to the file of the Judenburg Tax Office concerning the salary tax investigation. Its decision, which had meanwhile been confirmed on appeal, had found it established that the sums paid to the limited partners of the von Pezold limited partnership were in reality salaries subject to salary tax. 17.  Furthermore the Federal Minister noted that the Regional Health Insurance Board had repeatedly requested the applicant, who was assisted by counsel, to submit documents. It had tried to hear the limited partners as witnesses, but it had been impossible to summon any of them since they were all foreigners and none had a known address in Austria. It had heard three witnesses, including Mr S., the applicant's forest administrator, Mr G., who had been a trainee at the applicant's forestry site for three months in 1995, and Mr St. It had duly assessed the statements made by these witnesses and accordingly concluded that the persons concerned had worked in the applicant's forestry against remuneration, being bound to certain working hours and to the instructions of the foreman. They had thus worked in a relationship of personal and economic dependency, which qualified them as employees. 18.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court on 13 October 2003. She complained about defects in the procedure, claiming in particular that the witnesses she had requested had not been questioned at the hearing on 17 October 2001. Moreover she complained that the decision had wrongly applied the law in finding that the persons concerned qualified as employees. 19.  The administrative authorities concerned filed their statements in reply on 7 November and 22 December 2003, and submitted the relevant administrative files on 31 December 2003. 20.  On 21 December 2005 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's complaint as being unfounded. It considered that the authorities had duly assessed the evidence before them and had not been required to hear further witnesses or to carry out further investigations. The Administrative Court's judgment was served on the applicant's counsel on 14 February 2006. 21.  Subsequently the Styria Regional Governor resumed the proceedings which had been adjourned. In two separate decisions of 10 April 2006 the Styria Regional Governor dismissed the applicant's objection against the Regional Health Insurance Board's decision of 13 July 1998, concerning the surcharges on social security contributions, and her objection against the Regional Health Insurance Board's decision of 22 September 1998 (point II), concerning the payment of arrears in social security contributions. 22.  The applicant lodged complaints with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) against both decisions. She repeated her complaint that the proceedings relating to the issue of compulsory insurance had been defective and that she had not been given a reasonable opportunity to submit her arguments. In particular, the witnesses requested by her had not been heard. Furthermore, she complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the social security contributions she was required to pay were excessive. 23.  On 6 June 2006 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with both complaints, considering that they had no prospects of success. The decisions were served on the applicant's counsel on 19 June 2006.