Ex-post control Involuntary, unlawful retirement After the Supreme Administrative Court had granted a complaint, the administrative authorities were obligated to ensure immediate compliance with the legal situation based on the Supreme Administrative Court’s legal interpretation using the legal means available to them. The Human Resources office at the Austrian Post (Austrian postal service) unlawfully decreed that Mr N.N. must retire against his will as of 31 August 2010. His appeal was rejected by a decree from the Human Resources office of the Austrian Post, ordering his retirement as of 30 April 2011. Administrative Court overrides forced retirementl Since Mr N.N. wished to continue working at the Austria Post and considered himself sufficiently healthy to do so, he complained to the Supreme Administrative Court about this in his view unlawful forced retirement. The Administrative Court of Austria accepted this complaint on 23 January 2012 and overrode the decree in question based on its illegality through the violation of governance processes. Continued employment When the responsible authorities failed to issue a new decree, Mr N.N. complained to the AOB. Repeated AOB intervention was required to ensure that the Human Resources office granted his appeal on 11 January 2013 and overrode the contested decree. Mr N.N. can now continue working at the Austrian Post. AOB criticizes excessive duration of proceedings Even though this result is very encouraging for Mr N.N., the AOB felt compelled to state a case of maladministration. This was because the continued appeal proceedings took more than ten months after the appeal authorities received the overriding decree by the Administrative Court of Austria. According to Section 63(1) of the Administrative Court Act (Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz) in the version valid until the end of 2013, the administrative authorities were obligated, after the Administrative Court of Austria grants a complaint, to ensure immediate compliance with the legal situation based on the Administrative Court’s legal interpretation using the legal means available to them. The AOB does not consider this to have been achieved when it took more than ten months. Individual case: VA-BD-VIN/0033-A/1/2011 50