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 Applications nos. 69808/17 and 7666/18 COMINO UNTERNEHMENSBERATUNG ERWACHSENENBILDUNG   GMBH and Hilda ENZENHOFER against Austria lodged on 19 September 2017 and 1 February 2018 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the legal classification of the professional relations established between the first applicant company and, inter alia , the second applicant (no. 7666/18) as employment contracts under social security law. Both applicants contested the findings of the Vorarlberg Health Insurance Board ( Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse ) and requested in a second set of proceedings before the Federal Administrative Court ( Bundesverwaltungsgericht ) an oral hearing to be held. The Federal Administrative Court dismissed their request, stating that an oral hearing would clearly not have led to a further clarification of the relevant facts. The Constitutional Court ( Verfassungsgerichtshof ) as well as the Administrative Court ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) refused dealing with the applicants’ complaints. The applicants claim that their right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention has been violated as no oral hearing has been held in their case.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ 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)?