Fundamental Rights Section ginning of May, shortly before the state treaty celebrations, on the occasion of the 50-year anniversary of the Vienna State Treaty, were exchanged on the basis of a new traffic police ordinance, at the instruction of the suspect and replaced by an – offset, blue-outlined – place-name sign with the description 'Schwabegg' and a supplemental sign, with the description 'Žvabek'. With a decision dated December 13, 2006, V 81/06, the VfGH rescinded the ordinance sections that were disputed by the Ombudsman Board as being illegal. With this, it is now finally clarified that an approach that conforms to the state treaty, the constitution and legislation, in this context, can only exist if bilingual place-name signs are posted wherever it is required according to the now settled case law of the VfGH, regarding the constitutional term of the 'administrative district with a mixed population within the meaning of Art. 7 Z 3 second sentence of the Vienna State Treaty'. Topographical titles, particularly place-name signs, the setting up of which is authorised by administrative act/announcement, now not only mark the borders of an established town area, with all of the resulting legal consequences from the StVO, but also, demonstrate through the language(s) in which they are formulated and the place names used, which language(s) their inhabitants speak and which ethnic and cultural group(s) they belong to. To this extent, they possess a high degree of symbolic-discursive value. In this context, reference is made to the conclusion of the Constitutional Court in its decision 12.836/1991, according to which '... topographical titles of the type under discussion, in accordance with the purpose of the standard, do not provide relief for members of minorities, but rather, are intended to inform the general public that an obvious – relatively larger number of members of a minority live here...'. It is correct that the Constitutional Court, in its decision dated December 14, 2004 (VfGH V 131/03) emphasised that 'in the absence of sufficiently individualised party interest in adhering to this objective standard, no subjective right for individual members of minorities can be derived from Art. 7 point 3 second sentence of the Austrian State Treaty 1955, that topographical titles and descriptions be formulated in German, as well as the language of the minority'. However, in the same decision, the Constitutional Court also derives from the wording of this standard, 'that the provision of Art. 7 point 3 of the Austrian State Treaty 1955 represents an obligation of the Republic of Austria/an order to its bodies, under international law, to formulate topographical titles and descriptions bilingually'. 29