The Federal Minister within whose realm of responsibility the matter fell was of the opposite view: she argued that the existing law was probably in conformity with the constitution. However, the Constitutional Court sided with the AOB, and in December 2010 rescinded the provision on the grounds that it contravened the principle of equal treatment. The new, amended version of the travel allowance regulations is in line with the AOB’s arguments in the above case. However, other provisions still seem unconstitutional, not least in light of the Constitutional Court’s recent findings. The AOB has therefore asked the Federal Minister within whose realm of responsibility the matter falls to reassess the legislation. Provisions rescinded by the Constitutional Court Right to private and family life VIDEO CAMERA ENCROACHING ON PRIVACY Throughout Austria, the number of private video cameras used to monitor houses, building frontages etc. is on the rise. In many instances, the background to this is a feeling of security for the individuals involved, and protection of property. At the same time, citizens have quite rightly become more sensitised, particularly if they feel their privacy may be being encroached upon due to actual or suspected video monitoring. A resident of the Municipality of Gaweinstal in Lower Austria complained to the AOB that his house (located opposite a kindergarten and the offices of the local authorities) was being monitored by a video camera attached to the front of the aforementioned buildings. Mr. N. suspected that this was somehow connected to a registration infringement with which he had been charged. He alleged that the municipality was evidently trying to keep watch on him as he entered or left his house. According to a newspaper article, the mayor had allegedly made the following statement: "It is nothing but a dummy video camera and will be taken down on Monday. This gentleman has been annoying us for years, now we want to annoy him a little." Example case In a similar case, the Supreme Court has already ruled that there is no difference between a dummy video camera and a functioning one. The more important issue is whether the individual involved has Clear Supreme Court ruling 31