CASE OF BINDER v. AUSTRIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
Egidijus Kūris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
4. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Vienna. 5. On 29 January 2004 the applicant applied for rent allowance (Mietbeihilfe) under the Vienna Social Welfare Act (Wiener Sozialhilfegesetz). 6. On 13 July 2004 the Vienna Municipal Authority (Magistrat der Stadt Wien) dismissed the applicant’s request, holding that the applicant was not eligible for rent allowance as his income exceeded the statutory limit (Richtsatzüberschreitung). 7. The applicant appealed and complained that the Municipal Authority had failed to take into account his maintenance obligations towards his two sons. 8. On 10 August 2004 the Vienna Regional Government (Amt der Wiener Landesregierung) dismissed the appeal, holding that maintenance obligations were, according to the Administrative Court’s case-law, not to be considered as income-reducing, as long as no enforcement proceedings were instituted against the applicant’s income. 9. On 6 October 2004 the Constitutional Court granted the applicant’s request for legal aid in order to file a complaint against the Regional Government’s decision. 10. On 8 November 2004 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court, claiming in essence that the Regional Government had wrongly interpreted the Administrative Court’s case-law as regards the nonconsideration of the applicant’s maintenance obligations. 11. On 1 March 2005 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant’s complaint, holding that it did not raise any questions of constitutional law and transferred the case to the Administrative Court. 12. On 11 May 2005 the applicant submitted his amended complaint to the Administrative Court. 13. On 23 February 2009 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unfounded. Referring to its case-law, it held that the applicant had failed to argue that he was in a state of emergency due to enforcement proceedings being conducted in connection to his maintenance obligations. It was therefore not unlawful that the Regional Government had refrained from taking into account the applicant’s maintenance payments when assessing his eligibility for rent allowance. 14. This decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 13 March 2009.