4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Vienna. 5.  In 2007, the applicant was recipient of emergency relief payments (Notstands­hilfe) under the Unemployment Insurance Act (Arbeitslosen-versicherungsgesetz). 6.  On 15 March 2007 the Vienna Labour Market Service (Arbeitsmarkt­service) withdrew payments of emergency relief for six weeks finding that the applicant had thwarted an employment offer. The applicant appealed contesting the establishment of facts by the authority and requesting the taking of further evidence. 7.  On 4 July 2007 the Vienna Regional Labour Market Service, without holding an oral hearing, dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded. It found that the applicant, when he had applied for a post as an IT-trainer, had declared an excessive salary expectation and had emphasised that he was handicapped and that a potential employer had to expect him to be absent for three weeks’ sick leave every three years. The applicant had also stated in his application that his handicap would not hinder him to fully perform the exigencies of a post in the IT-area. The Regional Labour Market Service thereupon concluded that the reference to a handicap that was not relevant for the post advertised, the reference to expected sick leave and the high salary expectation showed the applicant’s negative attitude towards a reasonable employment opportunity. 8.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungs­gerichtshof) inter alia contesting the assumptions made by the administrative authorities, complaining of the lack of taking of evidence and explicitly requesting an oral hearing. 9.  On 11 September 2008 the Administrative Court, without holding an oral hearing, dismissed the complaint as unfounded. On the merits it found that the applicant’s salary expectation had been communicated to the potential employer without indicating an acceptable margin of negotiation. Therefore, his statement in this respect gave the impression that the applicant was not willing to take the post with a lower salary. His initial application could therefore be understood as an attempt to thwart an employment offer. With regard to the decision not to hold an oral hearing, the Administrative Court found that the facts had been sufficiently clear in the present case and that a hearing had therefore not been necessary. 10.  That judgment was served on the applicant’s counsel on 21 October 2008. 11.  The applicant did not lodge a complaint with the Constitutional Court.