Ex-post control The AOB welcomed the extensive investigation by the authorities and the extensive measures implemented by the authorities. Such incidents can only be prevented with sufficient training and by sensitizing the officials. Individual case: VA-BD-I/0452-C/1/2012, BMI-LR2240/0384-II/1/c/2013 3.5 Transport, Innovation and Technology 3.5.1 Fundamental rights Design approval partially unconstitutional The provision of Section 32a (3) last sentence of the Railway Act (Eisenbahngesetz), according to which the content of the opinion attached to the application for design approval is assumed to be accurate until proven otherwise, is unconstitutional in light of the most recent legislation. Law stipulates assumption that content of expert opinion is accurate Previously, an amendment of the Railway Act (Eisenbahngesetz) had been planned which specified an evaluation by an internal expert for design approval processes for rail vehicles. However, this provision has been replaced with the requirement of an external expert statement. Section 32a (3) of the Railway Act (Eisenbahngesetz), as amended by Federal Law Gazette I No. 125/2006, stipulates that such opinions must be presented as evidence to show whether the rail vehicle (or amended rail vehicle) for which design approval is to be granted is “state of the art” in the aspects outlined in the law. As a result, according to Section 32a (3) last sentence leg. cit., the “assumption that the content is accurate until proven otherwise” applies to the expert opinion/s. Constitutional Court determines unconstitutionality The Constitutional Court in its ruling on 2 October 2013, G 118/12, overrode the provision of identical wording in Section 31a (1) Railway Act as unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court gave the reason that it is incompatible with the ruleof-law principle and with Article 11(2) of the Federal Constitutional Act (BundesVerfassungsgesetz) to deprive the authorities responsible for granting approval under railway law of their responsibility to independently determine the facts. Legal situation in accordance with Federal Constitution According to the AOB, these findings also demonstrate that the provision of Section 32a (3) last sentence of the Railway Act is unconstitutional, because this uses the identical wording to the provision overridden by the Constitutional Court. It is now the legislator’s responsibility to create a new, constitutionally unproblematic legal basis for the design approval process for rail vehicles. Individual case: VA-BD-VIN/0029-A/1/2012 48