CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 novembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 25 November 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 56387/17 PAGITSCH GMBH against Austria lodged on 31 July 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the legal classification of professional relations established between the applicant company and three other involved parties as employment contracts under social-security law. The Salzburg Health Insurance Board ( Salzburger Gebietskrankenkasse ) ordered the applicant company to pay the outstanding contributions plus surcharges (in total approximately 32.500 Euros). The applicant company contested the findings of the Salzburg Health Insurance Board and appealed to the Federal Administrative Court ( Bundesverwaltungsgericht ), requesting an oral hearing to be held. The Federal Administrative Court dismissed its request, stating that an oral hearing would clearly not have led to a further clarification of the relevant facts, and also dismissed its appeal. The Constitutional Court ( Verfassungsgerichtshof ) as well as the Administrative Court ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) refused to deal with its complaints. The applicant company claims that its right to a fair trial under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention has been violated as no oral hearing has been held in its case. It further complains under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention that the Federal Administrative Court based its decision on observations filed by the Salzburg Health Insurance Board which had not been made known to the applicant company.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to an oral hearing, as guaranteed by Article   6 § 1 of the Convention ( Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, § 190, 6   November 2018; Emmer-Reissig v. Austria , no. 11032/04, §§ 27-31, 10   May 2007)?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of adversarial proceedings respected?