PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 38314/06) against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Austrian national, Mr Herbert Gassner (“the applicant”), on 21 August 2006.

The applicant was represented by Mr K. Dörnhöfer, a lawyer practising in Eisenstadt. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador H. Tichy, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry of European and International Affairs.

On 12 November 2009 the application was communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Eisenstadt.

The applicant is a judge at the Eisenstadt Regional Court. In July 1997 he made a study visit to the Commission of the European Union in Brussels. The Federal Ministry of Justice paid his travel expenses and granted the applicant two weeks’ special leave, in addition to which he took two weeks of his annual leave.

On 9 July 1997 the Federal Minister of Justice informed the applicant on his return that it would not reimburse any of the additional expenses he had claimed in the meantime on 20 June 1997.

On 5 September 1997 the applicant formally requested the reimbursement of further costs, incurred during the study visit, in particular the costs for his accommodation in the amount of Austrian schillings 17,699.75 (ATS - 1,284.11 euros (EUR)), and submitted additional records.

On 20 March 1998 the Federal Minister dismissed the applicant’s request on the grounds that the trip had not been an official journey – this having been made clear by the fact that the applicant had taken some annual leave during that period.

On 3 June 1998 the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court. He submitted that the Federal Minister had interpreted the relevant law incorrectly and that if he had properly assessed the evidence he would have concluded that the study visit to Brussels had to be treated as an official journey.

On 30 January 2002 the Administrative Court quashed the Federal Minister’s decision finding that the President of the Vienna Court of Appeal had been the authority competent to decide on the request for reimbursement at first instance, rather than the Federal Minister.

Thereupon, the matter was transferred to the President of the Vienna Court of Appeal who requested the applicant and the Federal Minister to submit explanations regarding the study visit.

On 17 September 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint (Säumnis­beschwerde) with the Administrative Court against the alleged failure of the President of the Court of Appeal to decide on his request within the statutory six-month time-limit.

On 23 October 2002 the Administrative Court rejected the complaint because the applicant had not made a prior request under Section 73 of the General Administrative Procedure Act for jurisdiction to be transferred to the Federal Minister of Justice as the authority responsible for hearing appeals.

On 29 November 2002 the President of the Vienna Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s request for reimbursement of the costs of his accommodation in Brussels on the grounds that the applicant had not been given instructions for an official journey and had not performed any official duties during his stay in Brussels. Therefore he was not entitled to reimbursement of his costs.

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against that decision to the Federal Minister of Justice.

On 4 February 2003 the Federal Minister dismissed the applicant’s appeal, confirming the findings in the first-instance decision.

On 14 April 2003 the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court against the Federal Minister’s decision. He submitted that while acknowledging that his trip had been in the interest of his official duties (dienstliches Interesse), the Minister had incorrectly assumed that the applicant’s study visit was not to be treated as an official journey. The applicant did not ask for a hearing before the Administrative Court.

On 24 February 2006 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding that the Minister had correctly assessed the evidence before him and had correctly concluded that the applicant’s study trip had not been treated as an official journey.