Fundamental Rights Section department investigations on grounds of suspicion of slight unlawful acts (e.g. property damage, shoplifting) in the typical grievance cases presented here whereby, furthermore, the respective suspicion situations were also variously strong in character, some of them being merely slight. None of the grievances investigated included an indication of gang crime, organised crime and/or criminal societies, for which reason special account should have been taken of the legal precept of considering the suspect’s person individually and observing special preventative aspects. However, failure to do so was discovered in almost all of the cases examined, or else it was insufficient or inappropriate. The AOB noticed a particularly disadvantageous aspect in that the principle of relativity anchored in the Security Department Act was regularly “forgotten” in both administrative procedures and in the statements of position provided to the ARA. 2.6 Right to fair court proceedings (Art. 6 of the MRK) 2.6.1 Asserting neighbour’s rights in court in cases of production facilities authorised in a simplified way (Art. 359b of the Trade Ordinance) According to Art. 359b of the Trade Ordinance, production facilities smaller than 1,000 m² are to be authorised in simplified proceedings, wherein neighbours have the right to inspect the project documentation and to be heard in the proceedings – however, they do not have a position as participating parties. The Supreme Court of Justice findings dated July 8, 2003, file code 40b 137/03f, clearly establish for the first time that neighbours’ rights to be heard are insufficiently safeguarded by the provision set out in Art. 359b of the Trade Ordinance. This decision is in accord with the critique the AOB has been asserting for years. In a multitude of reports, the AOB considered the introduction of the expansion of simplified proceedings and the correlated elimination of the neighbours from business-facility law and/or the reduction of the neighbours’ rights to the mere entitlement to a hearing to be miscarried. Just as the AOB to date, the Supreme Court of Justice is of the opinion that the neighbours’ lack of position as participating parties in simplified proceedings is not compensated by the fact that the neighbours may petition for ex post facto [legal] instructions according to art. 79a 22