Name of the act/s*

VfGH 16.06.2020, V 432/2020 (decision)

Subject area

COVID 19; Art 45 EU Fundamental Rights Charter; Art 17 EU Fundamental Rights Charter, Art 1 1^st Additional Protocol to the ECHR

Brief description of the contents of the act

The applicant challenged the regulation of the minister of health (Verordnung des Bundesministers für Soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und Konsumentenschutz über Maßnahmen bei der Einreise aus Nachbarstaaten, BGBl. II 87/2020, idF BGBl. II 92/2020, BGBl. II 104/2020, BGBl. II 111/2020, BGBl. II 129/2020, BGBl. II 149/2020, BGBl. II 195/2020, BGBl. II 218/2020, BGBl. II 233/2020, BGBl. II 242/2020 and BGBl. II 263/2020) regarding quarantine rules when entering Austria on the grounds of Art 139 Austrian Federal Constitutional Act.

Comment

The applicant is living in Austria and the owner of a sailing yacht in Croatia. The above-mentioned regulation foresaw a quarantine or a COVID-19 test for people entering Austria. This meant that in case the applicant traveled to Croatia to take care of his yacht he would have to undergo quarantine or do a COVID-19 test when coming back to Austria. The applicant claimed that the regulation was unconstitutional, because of an alleged violation in Art 45 EU FRC (freedom of movement) and Art 17 EU FRC, Art 1st Additional Protocol to the ECHR, Art 5 Basic Law on the General Rights of Nationals (property). Moreover, according to the applicant, the regulation did not distinguish between the epidemiological situation in different countries.

The Court dismissed the case on formal grounds (scope of appeal too narrow).

*Act citation /year and number

VfGH 16.06.2020, V 432/2020 (decision)

Enacted by

Constitutional Court

Official link to the text of the act

https://www.vfgh.gv.at/downloads/VfGH_Beschluss_V_432_2020.pdf

Name of the act/s*

Ra 2017/11/0093-0094, Ra 2017/11/0098, January 30^th 2020

Subject area

DIRECTIVE 96/71/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services

Brief description of the contents of the act

The Supreme Administrative Court decided that the employees of the train caterer of the Austrian train company do not underly directive 96/71 EC.

Comment

The applicant, a train caterer, contested a fine he had obtained earlier. The fine was based on the Austrian “Arbeitsvertragsrecht-Anpassungsgesetz”, which aims at reducing so-called “wage dumping” (Lohndumping) and “social dumping” (Sozialdumping). The Administrative High Court referred the case to the ECJ in order to find out whether the directive 96/71/EC applied to the case. After the ECJ´s decision in the “Dobersberger” case (C-16/18) of 16^th of December 2019 it was clear, that if the work of a person does not have a sufficient link to the territory of a State in which he does not usually work, this person is not a posted worker according to the directive.

This was the case for the employees of the Austrian train caterer. Amongst others, they started and ended their work in Hungary.

The Supreme Administrative Court therefore decided on the merits of the case and lifted the fine.

Enacted by

Supreme Administrative Court

Official link to the text of the act

 https://www.vwgh.gv.at/rechtsprechung/aktuelle_entscheidungen/ra_2017110093.pdf?7hjvl4

Name of the act/s*

Bundesgesetz, mit dem das Strafgesetzbuch, das Gesetz über das Bundesamt zur Korruptionsprävention und Korruptionsbekämpfung und die Strafprozeßordnung 1975 zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie über die strafrechtliche Bekämpfung von gegen die finanziellen Interessen der Union gerichtetem Betrug geändert werden

Subject area

Criminal Law, European Union

Brief description of the contents of the act

The Federal law implements the Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law by introducing new criminal offences in the area of corruption, fraud in public procurement procedures and money laundering.

Comment

Secondary sources/ doctrinal works (if any)

*Act citation /year and number

BGBl. I Nr. 111/2019

Enacted by

Federation

Official link to the text of the act

https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/eli/bgbl/I/2019/111/20191227

Name of the act/s*

Decision of the Constitutional Court, G72/2019 ua (G72-74/2019-48, G181-182/2019-18)

Subject area

Constitutional Law, Art 8 ECHR

Brief description of the contents of the act

A federal Act foreseeing a government Trojan was declared unconstitutional (violation of Art 8 ECHR).

Comment

The nature and intensity of the surveillance measure by the "Federal Trojan" was disproportionate, because it also affected many uninvolved persons.

Secondary sources/ doctrinal works (if any)

*Act citation /year and number

Constitutional Court, 11.12.2019, G72/2019 ua (G72-74/2019-48, G181-182/2019-18)

Enacted by

Official link to the text of the act

https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20191211_19G00072_00

Name of the act/s*

Decision of the Constitutional Court, E4114/2019

Subject area

Constitutional Law, EU Law

Brief description of the contents of the act

The Constitutional Court dismissed a claim which aimed at interim measures being taken based on Art 19 and Art 47 Fundamental Rights Charter.

Comment

The court reasoned, that in this specific case a claim for interim relief cannot be derived from EU law in proceedings before the Constitutional Court.

Secondary sources/ doctrinal works (if any)

*Act citation /year and number

Constitutional Court, 5.12.2019, E4114/2019

Enacted by

Official link to the text of the act

https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20191205_19E04114_00

Name of the act/s*

Decisions of the Constitutional Court, E2047/2019 ua; E3530/2019 ua; E2893/2019 ua

Subject area

Constitutional Law, EU Law

Brief description of the contents of the act

Infringement of the freedom of services because the amount of the fine and the seriousness of the infringements were disproportionate. Violation of Art 1 1st Additional Protocol to the ECHR, because the administrative tribunal of Vienna applied national law which the ECJ later declared to infringe EU law.

Comment

The court reasoned, that in this specific case a claim for interim relief cannot be derived from EU law in proceedings before the Constitutional Court.

Secondary sources/ doctrinal works (if any)

*Act citation /year and number

Constitutional Court, 27.11.2019, E2047/2019 ua; E3530/2019 ua; E2893/2019 ua

Enacted by

Official link to the text of the act

https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?ResultFunctionToken=8418a086-2ec1-4668-8c92-ecf917415f7a&Abfrage=Vfgh&Entscheidungsart=Undefined&Sammlungsnummer=&Index=&SucheNachRechtssatz=True&SucheNachText=False&GZ=&VonDatum=&BisDatum=08.03.2020