of “Women and Advancement of Equality” she was asked by a representative of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry why women could not find their fulfilment in raising children. As she was the only women among the candidates, she could only assume that the male candidates were not asked this question. After a more detailed examination, it was determined in the expert opinion dated 21 January 2010 that the rejection of Ms. N.'s application was a violation of the preferential treatment guarantee for the Equal Opportunities Commission agreed with Ms. N. advancement of women pursuant to Section 11c of the Federal Equal Opportunities Act and of the equal treatment guarantee pursuant to Section 4 (5) leg. cit. It was disappointing for Ms. N. that after the expert opinion had been issued, no one was willing to talk to her about it. She wanted to find out in what way an out-of-court settlement of the financial damages could proceed. In her opinion – and in the opinion of the Federal Equal Opportunities Commission – she had suffered damages. Ms. N. asserted compensation for damages in the proceeding due to having been discriminated against. This compensation for damages results from solicitor’s fees and the difference between her current monthly salary and the salary that she would have received if she had been hired for the management position of the regional office. Ms. N.’s petition was rejected by way of a notice by the federal office of the Public Employment Service Austria dated March 2011 and later by Claim for damages denied way of the decision on the appeal by the Federal Minister of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection dated September 2011. The justification was that there was no discrimination present in this case. The grounds given were that, after conducting a new review, Ms. N. was considered the worst qualified of the four candidates due specifically, but not exclusively, to the following considerations: “While Ms. N. is familiar with the labour market in the region on a general level, her knowledge, in comparison to the candidate who was ultimately chosen and who has worked for many years and in a variety of ways in the XY area of competence, must be considered as more limited.” By way of an ex-officio investigative proceeding, the AOB wanted to assist Ms. N. in her efforts for a quick, out-of-court financial settlement despite an already pending proceeding before the Austrian Federal Ministry defends action taken vis-à-vis the AOB Constitutional Court. It was viewed as a possible case of maladministration, as the Public Employment Service Austria – in its Plan for Equal Treatment and Advancement of Women 2008–2012 – had given itself the objective of opening up more opportunities for women when 71