CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 6 April 2021   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 14023/19 and 14031/19 Rado VRACKO against Austria and Renata KLINC and Blaz KLINC against Austria lodged on 6 March 2019 and 6 March 2019 respectively communicated on 15 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 12 July 2016 and on 4 August 2016, the Zell am See District Administrative Authority and the Mayor of Innsbruck, respectively, issued penal orders against the applicants because they had failed to provide certain documents in accordance with the Austrian Law Amending the Labour Contract Law ( Arbeitsvertragsrechts-Anpassungsgesetz , hereinafter “AVRAG”). The Salzburg and Tyrol Regional Administrative Courts, respectively, dismissed the applicants’ appeals. The Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicants’ appeals. In their requests for revision with the Administrative Court, the applicants requested to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the question of the compatibility of the AVRAG with European Union law. On 22 October 2018 and on 20   September 2018, respectively, the Administrative Court rejected the applicants’ requests for revision as well as their requests for a referral to the CJEU, even though at that time, a preliminary ruling procedure regarding the same issue was pending before the CJEU. The Administrative Court gave a brief reasoning for its decision, referring to its decision of 20   September 2018 (case no. Ra 2018/11/0118, which, in turn, referred to its judgment of 28 February 2017 (case no. 2016/11/0164)).     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the refusals of the Administrative Court to grant the applicants’ requests for a referral to the CJEU render the proceedings unfair, in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Harisch v. Germany , no.   50053/16, §§ 33-36, 11 April 2019)?   2.     Did the Administrative Court’s reasoning of its decisions of 22   October 2018 and of 20 September 2018, respectively, read alone, or in conjunction with the reasoning of the Administrative Court’s decision of 20   September 2018 (case no. Ra 2018/11/0118 ) and of 28 February 2017 (case no. Ra 2016/11/0164 ), respectively, suffice to comply with the obligation under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to indicate the reasons why the questions for referral are irrelevant, that the European Union law provisions in question have already been interpreted by the CJEU, or that the correct application of European Union law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt (see Harisch v. Germany , cited above, § 36), in particular in the light of the fact that a preliminary ruling procedure concerning the same issue was pending before the CJEU at that time?