Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 17371/90

C. G.

against

Austria

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 11 January 1995)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1-15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

A. The application

(paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

B. The proceedings

(paras. 5-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

C. The present Report

(paras. 11-15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 16-21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

A. The particular circumstances of the case

(paras. 16 - 19). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

B. Relevant domestic law

(paras. 20 - 21). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 22 - 58) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

A. Complaints declared admissible

(para. 22). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

B. Points at issue

(para. 23). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

C. As to Article 6 of the Convention

(paras. 24 - 37). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

CONCLUSION

(para. 38 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

D. As to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

and Article 14 of the Convention

(paras. 39 - 51). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

CONCLUSION

(para. 52). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

E. As to Article 8 of the Convention

(paras. 53 - 54). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

CONCLUSION

(para. 55). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

F. Recapitulation

(paras. 56 - 58). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PARTIALLY CONCURRING AND PARTIALLY DISSENTING

OPINION OF Mrs. J. LIDDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

APPENDIX I : HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . 12

APPENDIX II : DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE

ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . 13

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the

European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the

Commission.

A. The application

2. The applicant is a Turkish citizen. Until, apparently, September

1987 he lived in Hörsching, in Upper Austria, and since then he has

lived in Izmir in Turkey. He was represented before the Commission by

Mr. H. Blum, lawyer, of Linz.

3. The application is directed against Austria. The respondent

Government were represented by their agent, Ambassador F. Cede, head

of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for Foreign

Affairs.

4. The case concerns the refusal by the Austrian courts - based on

the relevant legislation - to grant the applicant a specific social

welfare benefit. The applicant invokes Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the

Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

B. The proceedings

5. The application was introduced on 17 May 1990 and registered on

29 October 1990.

6. On 2 September 1992 the Commission (First Chamber) decided,

pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give

notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite

the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and

merits.

7. The Government's observations were submitted on 19 November 1992

and the applicant submitted his observations in reply on 8 January

1993. On 5 March 1993 the Government submitted a translation of their

observations.

8. On 11 January 1994 the Commission declared the application

admissible.

9. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent

to the parties on 28 January 1994 and they were invited to submit such

further information or observations on the merits as they wished. The

applicant submitted observations on 2 March 1994 and the Government

submitted observations on 7 April 1994. On 27 April 1994 the

Government submitted a reply to the applicant's observations of

2 March, and the applicant submitted comments thereon on 8 July 1994.

10. After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in

accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed

itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a

friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the

Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement

can be effected.

C. The present Report

11. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (First

Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after

deliberations and votes, the following members being present:

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

12. The text of this Report was adopted on 11 January 1995 by the

Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the

Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the

Convention.

13. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the

Convention, is :

(i) to establish the facts, and

(ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose

a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under

the Convention.

14. A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the

Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's

decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.

15. The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the

documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the

Commission.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A. The particular circumstances of the case

16. On 6 July 1987 the applicant applied for an advance on his

pension by way of emergency payment (Antrag auf Gewährung der

Notstandshilfe in Form eines Pensionsvorschusses in Form der

Notstandshilfe) under the the Unemployment Insurance Act

(Arbeitslosenversicherungsgesetz - ALVG).

17. The application was refused by the Linz Labour Office

(Arbeitsamt) and the Upper Austrian Regional Labour Office

(Landsarbeitsamt) because the applicant failed to fulfil the

requirement of Section 33 para. 2 (a) of the ALVG that only Austrian

citizens qualify for such payments.

18. The applicant made a complaint to the Constitutional Court

(Verfassungsgerichtshof) in which he alleged violation of Article 6 of

the Convention, of Article 5 of the Basic Law of 21 December 1867

(Staatsgrundgesetz) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention,

and of Article 8 of the Convention. On 26 February 1988 the

Constitutional Court declined to deal with the case. It found, by

general reference to its case-law, that the application had no adequate

prospect of success, and also found that it was not excluded from the

jurisdiction of the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof)

(Article 144 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution). The Constitutional

Court referred the case to the Administrative Court.

19. As a result of the Administrative Court being seized of the case,

the applicant was requested to complete his application. He replied

on 7 July 1988, referring to his right under the law to an advance on

his pension. He requested the Administrative Court to quash the

decision of the Upper Austrian Labour Office and to have the

constitutionality of Section 33 para. 2 (a) of the ALVG determined by

the Constitutional Court. On 19 September 1989 (received by the

applicant's representative on 20 November 1989) the Administrative

Court rejected the complaint. It referred to previous cases in which

it had found that complaints concerning the application of, inter alia,

unconstitutional laws fell to be decided by the Constitutional Court.

It considered that the applicant's complaint - namely that of the

requirement of Austrian citizenship for payment of an advance on

pension by way of emergency payment under the ALVG - was such a

complaint. Accordingly, the complaint fell outside the jurisdiction

of the Administrative Court and was duly rejected.

B. Relevant domestic law

20. Section 33 of the Unemployment Insurance Act provides, so far as

relevant, as follows:

[German]

"(1) Arbeitslosen, die den Anspruch auf Arbeitslosengeld ...

erschöpft haben, kann auf Antrag Notstandshilfe gewährt werden.

(2) Voraussetzung für die Gewährung der Notstandshilfe ist, daß

der Arbeitslose

a) die österreichische Staatsbürgerschaft besitzt ..."

[Translation]

"(1) An emergency payment can be made to any unemployed person

who is no longer entitled to claim unemployment benefit ..

(2) It is a precondition for the grant of an emergency payment

that the unemployed person

a) has Austrian nationality ..."

21. Emergency payments are assessed on the basis of need, but must

not exceed a fixed proportion of the unemployment benefit a person

would receive if still entitled to such benefit. Unemployment benefit

is earnings-related and is funded partly from contributions and partly

from various Government sources.

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaints declared admissible

22. The Commission has declared admissible the complaints that the

applicant's ineligibility for an advance on his pension by way of

emergency payment was in violation Articles 6, 8 and 14

(Art. 6, 8, 14) of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(P1-1) to the Convention.

B. Points at issue

23. The issues to be determined are:

- whether there has been a violation of the applicant's right to

a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of

the Convention;

- whether there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(Art. 1-P1) to the Convention, either alone or taken together

with Article 14 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-14), and

- whether there has been a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the

Convention.

C. As to Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention

24. Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides, so far

as relevant, as follows:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,

everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an

independent and impartial tribunal established by law."

25. The applicant points out that emergency payments are inextricably

linked to the recipient of such payments having had a contract of

employment, as the possibility of a payment under Section 33

para. 2 (a) only arises where unemployment benefit, or payments whilst

on special leave, is no longer being paid. Since both of these

categories can apply only to persons who have worked for the requisite

time under private-law contracts, he sees the payment as "civil" in

nature.

26. The Government emphasise the public-law characteristics of

emergency payments under the ALVG, in particular that emergency

payments are based on need rather than income, and that the various

Government sources for the payments indicate that the scheme is not

managed as a private or private-type scheme. They consider that

Article 6 (Art. 6) was not at all applicable to the proceedings at

issue, but that if it was, then the Constitutional Court in declining

to deal with a case in fact has to form a view as to its merits, such

that the applicant had access to that court. They also point out that

the Administrative Court was bound to state that it had no jurisdiction

because of the nature of the applicant's complaints, and consider that

the Administrative Court's decision should be disregarded, with the

result that the applicant has failed to comply with the six months

time-limit in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. The Government

underline that the Constitutional and Administrative Courts are part

of the Austrian judicial system and the judges are independent of the

executive. As to the extent to which the courts review facts, the

Government point to the comprehensive possibility to review which they

say derives from Section 42 para. 2 (a) - (c) of the Administrative

Court Act (Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz).

27. The Commission recalls that the civil guarantees of Article 6

(Art. 6) of the Convention only apply to proceedings in which there is

a "dispute" over a "right". There must be a right which can be said,

at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised in domestic law, the

dispute must be genuine and serious, and the result of the proceedings

must be directly decisive for the right in question (see, for example,

Eur. Court H.R., Mats Jacobsson of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 180,

p. 29, paras. 30, 31 with further references).

28. In the present case, Section 33 para. 2 (a) of the ALVG states

that it is a precondition for the grant of an emergency payment that

the unemployed person has Austrian nationality. The provision is

unambiguous, and the applicant did not contend in the domestic

proceedings that he had Austrian nationality. It must have been

apparent to the applicant from the clarity of the replies he received

from the Linz Labour Office and the Upper Austrian Labour Office that

ordinary law precluded a successful application for an emergency

payment.

29. The Commission finds that ordinary Austrian law unequivocally

excluded the applicant from the operation of Section 33 (1) of the

ALVG.

30. The applicant, however, made a constitutional complaint in which

he alleged violation of various provisions of the Convention and

Protocol No. 1, (P1) and Article 5 of the Basic Law of

21 December 1867, which guarantees the right to property. The

Commission must therefore also decide whether the allegations the

applicant made in those constitutional proceedings were capable of

amounting to the serious and genuine dispute as to the existence of a

right to the particular social welfare benefit at issue.

31. The European Court of Human Rights has found in a case in which

there were close links between underlying proceedings which were

"civil" and constitutional proceedings taken in the course of those

underlying proceedings, that those constitutional proceedings also fell

to be considered under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention (Eur. Court

H.R., Ruiz-Mateos judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A no. 262, p. 24,

para. 59).

32. The present case is different from the Ruiz-Mateos case. Whilst

in that case there were in existence proceedings which were undoubtedly

"civil" within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6), and the

constitutional proceedings were inextricably intertwined with the

underlying proceedings, in the present case, there were no underlying

civil proceedings within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention as the applicant did not have - even arguably - a right in

ordinary domestic law to the benefit he claimed (see para. 29 above).

33. In such circumstances, the constitutional proceedings can only

be regarded in isolation.

34. The subject matter of the applicant's constitutional complaint

was not an alleged right to a particular social welfare benefit, but

an allegation that the legislation which denied him such a right was

in conflict with the constitutional provisions of Austrian law,

including the Convention. Such an allegation is not, of itself,

sufficient to constitute a "right" in domestic law. In particular,

before the applicant could have benefitted from the allegation of

unconstitutionality, the Constitutional Court would have had to adjourn

the proceedings brought by the applicant for norm control proceedings

to be instituted, and those norm control proceedings would have had to

result in the quashing of the provision at issue.

35. That the applicant did not have a right to the contested social

welfare benefit in ordinary domestic law, is confirmed in that if there

had been a right, he would have been able to allege before the

Administrative Court that it had not been properly determined. As

there was no right, he was able merely to allege before the

Constitutional Court that he ought to have one.

36. In the context of the constitutional complaints which were made

in the present case, that is, completely divorced from any proceedings

to which the guarantees of Article 6 (Art. 6) attach, the Commission

finds that, for the purposes of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention,

the applicant was not making allegations that he had a "right" in

domestic law.

37. Accordingly, there was no "right" in domestic law, and the

Commission is not required to determine whether any dispute was genuine

and serious, or whether the outcome of the proceedings was decisive.

CONCLUSION

38. The Commission concludes, by 12 votes to 1, that there has been

no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

D. As to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention and

Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention

39. Given that the applicant was excluded from the operation of

Section 33 of the ALVG by law, such that he is complaining effectively

that Austrian law operates discriminatorily, the Commission will

consider his complaint under Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention in

connection with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

40. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention provides as

follows:

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful

enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his

possessions except in the public interest and subject to the

conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of

international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair

the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary

to control the use of property in accordance with the general

interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions

or penalties."

41. Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention provides as follows:

"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this

Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground

such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other

opinion, national or social origin, association with a national

minority, property, birth or other status."

42. The applicant considers that the right to an emergency payment

has its basis in private law since it results from the acquisition of

credits based on the period during which a person has been insured

under a private-law contract of employment. He considers it impossible

to justify the difference in treatment between Austrians and non-

Austrians when each has paid contributions on exactly the same basis.

43. The Government point out that the applicant did not fall within

the class of persons eligible for an emergency payment under the

legislation, so that his unsuccessful, public-law claims could not give

rise to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

44. In their submissions made subsequent to the Commission's

admissibility decision, the Government consider that the applicant was

in any event not entitled to the benefit claimed as advances on

pensions - not emergency payments as the applicant claims - can only

be made where a person is able and willing to work. The applicant had

applied for an invalidity pension on 29 October 1985 (before he made

the application at issue in the present case), and so in effect

declared that he was not willing to work on ground of alleged

infirmity. The application for an invalidity pension was finally

rejected on 17 August 1987 as the applicant was not infirm, and so the

request for an advance could only have been in connection with the

period to that date. Finally, the Government point out that after the

applicant left Austria he was in any event not entitled to an advance

on his pension, and would not have been so entitled if he had been

Austrian.

45. In reply to these submissions, the applicant confirms that he

applied for an emergency payment in the form of an advance on his

pension, and he refers to Sections 23 and 33 of the ALVG. He points

out that the application was refused on the sole ground that the

applicant did not have Austrian nationality, and that reference was

made to Section 33 para. 2 (a) of the ALVG. He considers that the

rejection of his application for an invalidity pension is irrelevant,

as the ALVG does not require repayment of advances where a substantive

request for an invalidity pension is refused. Had he been Austrian,

he would have received the advance. He adds that the only reason why

he left Austria was because he no longer had any means of support.

46. In connection with Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention, the

Government state that the legislature considered it admissible to limit

the benefit to Austrian citizens only, and that it did so in the

expectation that other states would look after the emergency needs of

their own citizens. The Government also refer to the difficult

financial situation.

47. The Commission notes that the social welfare benefit the

applicant was claiming, and which the Austrian authorities refused him

on the ground that he was not Austrian, formed part of the benefits to

which persons who have contributed to the relevant fund are, in

general, entitled if they comply with the statutory conditions. The

Commission considers that, as the obligation to pay "taxes or other

contributions" falls within the field of application of Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1, (P1-1) the ensuing benefits also fall with the field

of application of that provision. Accordingly, Article 14 (Art. 14)

is also applicable (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Darby judgment of 23 October

1990, Series A no. 187, p. 12, para. 30).

48. Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention protects individuals

placed in similar situations from discrimination in their enjoyment of

their rights under the Convention and its Protocols. However, a

difference in treatment of one of these individuals will only be

discriminatory if it has no "objective and reasonable justification",

that is if it does not pursue a "legitimate aim" and if there is no

"reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed

and the aim sought to be realised (above-mentioned Darby judgment,

p. 12, para. 31).

49. The Commission notes that the Government do not deny that Section

33 para. 2 (a) of the ALVG sets up a condition which excludes those who

are not Austrians, and they do not contend that the contributions made

by Austrians differ from those made by non-Austrians. They do argue

that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit he applied for on

grounds which were not discriminatory as they would have applied

equally to Austrian nationals. Thus they state that the applicant's

original application cannot have been for an emergency payment but must

have been for an advance on his pension, and they say that this must

have related to he invalidity pension he had already applied for. They

also argue that as he left Austria in 1987, an Austrian would

thereafter not have been entitled to a benefit, either.

50. The Commission notes that the Government do not proffer a

justification for the difference in treatment, but merely refer to the

fact that the Austrian Parliament deemed it admissible and necessary

to grant such benefits to Austrian citizens only, and they refer to the

expectation that other states would ensure minimum subsistence levels

for their own nationals, and to the difficult financial position. The

Commission finds no indication of a justification in this. If foreign

citizens are permitted to enter and to work in a country, and if they

make payments into the prevailing system of insurance on the same basis

as nationals, the difference in treatment does not appear to have

objective and reasonable justification within the meaning of the case-

law to Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.

51. The Government have contended that the applicant was not - apart

from the criterion of nationality - entitled to the benefit he applied

for. The Commission would, however, note that the domestic decisions

without exception rely on Section 33 para. 2 (a) rather than any of the

considerations referred to by the Government. Moreover, even if it is

correct that from September 1987 the applicant had left the country and

so would not have been eligible for the benefit even if he had been

Austrian, there is no doubt that from 6 July 1987 until that date he

was in the country and was treated differently from an Austrian in

otherwise the same position.

CONCLUSION

52. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a

violation of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention taken together with

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

E. As to Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention

53. The applicant also alleges violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the

Convention.

54. In the light of its conclusions above, the Commission finds that

the application raises no separate issue in connection with Article 8

(Art. 8) of the Convention.

CONCLUSION

55. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that no separate issue is

raised in connection with Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.

F. Recapitulation

56. The Commission concludes, by 12 votes to 1, that there has been

no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

(para. 38).

57. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a

violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken together with

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ((Art. 14+P1-1) (para. 52).

58. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that no separate issue is

raised in connection with Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention

(para. 55).

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C. R. ROZAKIS)

(Or. English)

PARTIALLY CONCURRING AND PARTIALLY DISSENTING

OPINION OF Mrs. J. LIDDY

With hesitation I voted for a finding of violation of Article 6

in this case.

The majority are of the view that an allegation that the

legislation at issue conflicted with the constitutional guarantee of

the right to property is not, in itself, sufficient to constitute a

"right" in domestic law. This is because the successful invocation of

the constitutional right would only have resulted in the quashing of

the relevant legislative provision.

While I see the force in the latter argument, this seems to me

to relate more to whether the proceedings would have been "decisive"

for the determination of the applicant's right, rather than whether

there was a "right" in domestic law to begin with. It appears to me

inconceivable that the quashing of such a provision would not result

in the legislature taking fresh action to remedy a situation which, in

the eyes of the Constitutional Court, infringed a fundamental right of

an individual. On the facts of the present case, the position is even

clearer. Section 33(2)(a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which

provides for the nationality condition, is clearly severable and the

offending words could have been deleted by the Constitutional Court,

without any lacuna in the law calling for legislative action. The

Constitutional Court could then have remitted the case to the

administrative appeal authority in order for a decision to be made on

the basis of the law as it stood in the light of the deletion, and the

applicant would then have obtained a decision on the facts of his own

case. Accordingly, a challenge to the constitutionality of the law

would have been decisive for the applicant's rights.

Moreover, the right in issue was "civil": the Commission has

accepted the applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The right

was of a pecuniary nature. It is true that emergency payments under

the ALVG have public-law characteristics, but as pointed out by the

applicant, they are inextricably linked to the fact that the recipient

had a contract of employment. I note in this connection that the

amount of an emergency payment is assessed by reference to the

individual's entitlement to unemployment benefit, which is earnings-

related and funded partly from contributions.

The applicant was unable to obtain a hearing of his case before

the Constitutional Court, which declined to deal with the case. The

Administrative Court was not competent to deal with his complaint.

Accordingly, there was no fair hearing before an independent and

impartial tribunal.

For these reasons I voted in the sense indicated.

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

_________________________________________________________________

17 May 1990 Introduction of application

29 October 1990 Registration of application

Examination of admissibility

2 September 1992 Commission's decision (First Chamber) to

communicate the case to the respondent

Government and to invite the parties to submit

observations on admissibility and merits

19 November 1992 Government's observations

8 January 1993 Applicant's observations in reply

11 January 1994 Commission's decision to declare the application

admissible

Examination of the merits

28 January 1994 Decision on admissibility transmitted to

parties. Invitation to parties to submit further

observations on the merits

2 March 1994 Applicant's observations

7 April 1994 Government's observations

27 April 1994 Government's further observations

8 July 1994 Applicant's further observations

17 May 1994 Commission's consideration of the state of

proceedings

18 October 1994 Commission's consideration of the state of

proceedings

11 January 1995 Commission's deliberations on the merits, final

vote and consideration of text of the Report and

adoption of Report

Menu

C.G. v. AUSTRIA

C.G. v. AUSTRIA

LEXI