Fundamental Rights Section 20, 2006 that 'the Gebühren Info Service (TV and Radio Fee Information Service) had completed the project of including automatic explanations of the grounds in official notifications rejecting applications for exemption' and that the project had been launched in due time on May 25, 2006, the Gebühren Info Service (TV and Radio Fee Information Service) was not able, by the editorial deadline of this report, to include – in those official notifications which did not fully make allowance for the point of view of the party – a reasoning that complies with the provisions of the AVG and the requirements of the principle of equality. Repeated requests of the Ombudsman Board to the Federal Ministry of Finance concerning the progress made regarding the necessary adaptation of the EDP system have remained unanswered since February 2005 despite several queries (!), which itself represents a (further) administrative grievance. This gives rise to the impression that Gebühren Info Service (TV and Radio Fee Information Service) is not interested, at least for the time being, in a legally consistent execution of the law which is compatible with the legal interpretation by the Supervisory Authority. Since the implementation of laws and court rulings of the supreme courts must not depend on fiscal considerations and since the unconstitutional state of affairs described above, has not ceased for more than two and a half years after the said recommendation of the Ombudsman Board, the latter will continue, with all instruments available, to urge the Gebühren Info Service (TV and Radio Fee Information Service) to perform its sovereign tasks in conformity with the Constitution and the relevant laws. 2.6.2.2 Limited duration of validity of and/or suspension of driving licences with unsubstantiated reasoning (VA BD/377-V/05, 74-V/06 und 121-V/06) When dealing with complaints against the limited duration of validity of and/or the suspension of driving licences, the Ombudsman Board had to point out in the reporting year that the respective official notifications had been issued by the competent authorities partly with unsubstantiated reasoning. As pointed out above, the VfGH has consistently ruled that official notifications founded on unsubstantiated reasoning are deficient to an extent that violates constitutionally guaranteed rights. An official notification that 'justifies' the limitation of the validity period of and/or the suspension of driving licences merely by reference to the respective legal provision, which allows such limitation and/or suspension, without giving any explanation why the re- 55