TEAM

ÜBER UNS

Successful interventions (exemplary)

Our year-long experience we have been able to successfully intervene and enforce our clients rights in many cases.

Please find below a chronological extract of administrative and Supreme Court‘s decision. We have been successfully representing our clients interests in the cited proceedings and rejoice in the successes:

Migration law, Asylum law

  • Austrian constitutional court dated 11.6.2011, U 230/12

Decision

Asylum case. expulsion and interpretation successfully prevented. Suspension of a decision by the asylum court due to defects of the preceding investigations, failure to consider the year-long residence of the applicant in Austria etc.

  • Austrian constitutional court dated 22.11.2012, U 1150/12

Decision

Asylum case. Suspension of a decision by the asylum court ref. Application for asylum due to failure to duly considere submitted facts of the case, failure to adequately investigate into the facts, the effects of the investigations by court; arbitrary decision by the asylum court (in this case: decision based on an incomplete country report).

  • Austrian Supreme Administrative Court dated 12.9.2013, Ra 2012/21/0110

Decision

Custody proceeding detention, suspension of the administrative order of detention. Proper residence and family life in Austria. Inadequacy of detention.

  • Austrian Supreme Administrative Court dated 3.9.2015, Ro 2015/21/0030

Decision

Suspension of an order of detention preceding deportation; implementation of the so-called Dublin III-regulation.

  • Austrian Supreme Administrative Court dated 24.5.2016, Ra 2016/21/0008

Decision

Suspension of a decision by the federal administrative court ref. Restitution of a detained person into the deadline for appeal against a ban of residence.

  • Supreme Administrative Court 29.1.2020, Ra 2019/18/0367

Decision

Deprivation of the status of subsidiary protection and withdrawal of the temporary right of residence in Austria successfully challenged.

The Federal Authority for Migration and Asylum and the Federal Administrative Court have to consider the legal validity of former decision on the extension of the status of subsidiary protection and the respective right of residence. They are not allowed to deprive a person of this status if the situation has not substantially changed since the last extension of the status and residence permit.

  • Supreme Administrative Court 30.4.2020, Ra 2019/21/0344

Decision

Unlimited entry ban imposed by authority suspended by the Supreme Administrative Court
Successful appeal against an unlimited entry ban

In the case of a Turkish citizen resident in Austria who was deported to Turkey because of a criminal conviction in Germany in connection with the support of a terrorist organization and who was subject to an unlimited entry ban, our law firm has effectively achieved the grant of an extraordinary appeal by Austria’s Supreme Administrative Court. The Court has quashed the decision of the Federal Administrative Court to impose an unlimited entry ban.

Since the applicant was born and raised in Austria and his core family also resides in Austria, the Supreme Administrative Court considered the imposition of an unlimited residence ban to be illegal.

When determining the duration of an entry ban, the authorities and courts have to apply a case-by-case assessment. In doing so, not only the behaviour of the third-country national up to that point must be taken into account, but also his or her private and family life. In the present case, the imposition of an unlimited entry ban was not justified, because the appellant could no longer return to Austria even if the risk emanating from him was reduced and it would not be reasonable for his family to move to Turkey. The quashed decision of the Federal Administrative Court regarding the admissibility of the unlimited entry ban was therefore unlawful. It was suspended.

After this success the appellant may return to his family in Austria.

Public employment law

  • Federal Commission for Equality dated 16.10.2013, BKA-F147.800/0051-II/3/2012

Decision

131. Expert opinion issued by the federal commission for equality, stating an inequality based on gender according to § 4 Federal Equal Treatment Act („Bundes-Gleichbehandlungsgesetz“) ref. professional career (advertisement of a superior position in the board of a Pedagogical College).

Following the expert opinion, succeeding successful representation in a court action for the enforcement of claims are based on the determined inequality.

Administrative offenses and penalties

  • Lower Austrian Administrative Court dated 28.1.2014, LVwG-HL-12-2081

Complete suspension and waiver of further prosecution ref. a penalty for the infringement against the laws on gambling, penalty €5000.

  • Vienna Administrative Court dated 15.2.2017, VGW-041/003/12211/2016 (not yet published online in the public database of jurisdiction)

Complete suspension of two penalties issued by the Vienna magistrate, waiver of for the prosecution of two trade managers representing a construction company, alleged infringement of a subcontractor against the Foreign Labour Act.

  • Administrative Court Tyrolea, 17.12.2019, LVwG-2019/25/1430-12

Decision

  • Administrative Court Tyrolea, 11.2.2020, LVwG-2019/26/0890-16

Decision

The financial police had encountered several workers employed by an international company at a construction site. The municipality of Innsbruck initiated administrative penalty proceedings against the principal‘s CEOs for infringement of the obligations to notify labour secondments and posting of workers to Austria, documentation and provision of information to the authorities according to the Austrian Wages and Social Dumping Act („Lohn- und Sozialdumping-Bekämpfungsgesetz“, short: „LSD-BG“). The penalties reached a higher five-digit amount.

Our sucessful appeal led to a suspension of the penalty decisions and administrative penalty proceedings. The Administrative Court Tyrolea came to the conclusion that the contractor was acting independently and therefor the CEOs of the principal could not be held liable for the alleged infringements. There were no indications for a temporary employment of the subcontractor’s workers by the principal. The principal’s CEOs cannot be held responsible for infringements of the obligations to notify, keep records and provide documentation on labour secondments of their subcontractor.

We appreciate this – economically relevant – cancellation of a penalty decision for our clients!

Environmental law

  • Lower Austrian Administrative Court dated 28.4.2014, LVwG-AB-13-0195

Decision

Public complaint against the pollution of the environment; suspension of the decision by the district of Korneuburg rejecting on the complaint; court‘s order to a follow-up on the complaint and carry on comprehensive investigations.

  • Austrian Supreme Administrative Court dated 29.6.2017, Ra 2017/04/0036

Decision

Suspension of a decision by the lower Austrian administrative court ref. approval of the construction and operation of a hydropower plant in Grafenwörth by the Lower Austrian regional government.

Electricity law

  • Decision by the Lower Austrian government dated 1.9.2014, WST6-E-14091/001-2011

Legally binding determination of the qualification of power lines as „direct line“ between hydropower plant and an industrial plant.

  • Lower Austrian Administrative Court dated 9.10.2014, LVwG-AB-14-0377

Suspension of a decision ordering the suspension of a taxi driver‘s license.

Visa and residence law

  • Austrian Supreme Administrative Court dated 5.5.2015, Ro 2014/22/0008

Decision

Suspension of a decision by the governor of Vienna, magistrate department 35, ref. dismissal of an application for a residence permit without a permission to work.

  • Vienna Administrative Court dated 31.3.2017, VGW-151/011/4127/2017 (not yet published online in the public database of jurisdiction)

Suspension of a decision by the governor of Vienna, magistrate department 35, ref. dismissal of an application for a residence permit for a student.

  • Lower Austrian Administrative Court dated 31.8.2017, LVwG-AV-616/001-2017

Decision

The applicant represented by our law firm, a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is a trained tiler. We applied for a Red-White-Red Card for other key workers for him and his employer, an Austrian construction company. The applicant achieved a sufficient number of points in accordance with Appendix C to the Austrian Foreign Employment Act (“Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz”, short: “AuslBG”) and met all the general requirements for the requested residence permit. Nevertheless, the immigration authority refused to grant the residence permit (Red-White-Red Card for other key workers).

On behalf of our client, we successfully challenged the negative decision. Following our complaint, the Lower Austria Regional Administrative Court (Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich) ordered the immediate issuance of the requested residence permit (Red-White-Red Card for other key workers).

We are glad to have achieved this success for our client and the Austrian construction company, by which our client has been employed as a key worker ever since.

  • Federal Administrative Court dated 18.6.2019, W156 2219513-1/5E

Decision

Our client had applied for Red-White-Red Card for key workers. The Austrian Labour Market Service (AMS) denied the accountability of the points for her university studies, her German and English language skills. With regards to the German and language skills, the AMS argued that the respective certificates must not have been issued more on year before the date of application. However, this requirement has no legal basis.

Following our appeal, the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) suspended the negative decision by the AMS. The AMS was instructed to review their decisions and take into account the correct legal position following our pleading in the case before the federal administrative court. The AMS had to hold accountable all the proven qualifications like university degree, language certificates, professional experience et cetera and issue a positive statement in favour of the admission of our client as a key employee. Consequently, the immigration office instantly issued the applied red white red card for other key workers.

We are happy for the success for our client who may now work as key employee in Austria!

  • Vienna Administrative Court dated 30.3.2020, VGW-151/083/15628/2019 (not yet published online in the public database of jurisdiction)

In this proceedings, we successfully represented a third-country student at an Austrian College.

The residence authority (MA 35) had rejected this student’s application for extension due to a lack of success in studying. The Vienna Administrative Court had confirmed this decision. We have appealed the decision of the Vienna Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court has granted suspensive effect to this appeal (Austrian Supreme Administrative Court dated 27.6.2017, Ro 2017/22/0087). This allowed our client to stay in Austria for two and a half years.

In the following new procedure, we achieved the grant of a new residence permit-student before the Vienna Administrative Court. The Vienna Administrative Court ruled that in view of his very good German language skills, excellent study results and the sustainable integration in Austria, the application in Austria must be approved and the application must be granted.

We are pleased with this success, which enables our client to finish his studies in Austria and plan his professional future in Austria.

Educational law

  • Federal Administrative Court dated 26.8.2015, W203 2107895-1

Decision

Suspension of a decision of the Vienna School Board ref. an order to close down a private school due to alleged formal defects in proceedings for the notification of the school principal.

  • Federal Administrative Court dated 16.9.2015, W203 2113677-1

Decision

Suspension of a provisional injunction issued by the Vienna School Board ordering the immediate suspension of operation office school.

  • Federal Administrative Court dated 26.01.2016, W203 2113677-2

Decision

Suspension of a decision by the Vienna school board to prohibit the operation of the school and based on alleged the facts of the teaching material provided by the school operator.

  • Federal Administrative Court dated 10.2.2016, W224 2111561-1

Decision

Suspension of a decision by the Vienna School Board prohibiting the employment of a biology teacher and relegation of the proceedings to the Vienna School Board.

  • Federal Administrative Court dated 10.2.2016, W224 2111279-1

Decision

Suspension of a decision by the Vienna School Board prohibiting the employment of a history teacher and relegation of the proceedings to the Vienna School Board.

  • Austrian Supreme Administrative Court dated 9.8.2016, Ro 2016/10/0016

Decision

Successful intervention in favor of the school operator before the supreme administrative court following an appeal against the decision of the Federal Administrative Court by the Vienna School Board.