CEDAW/C/64/D/67/2014 4.7 The State party also submitted that, according to the applicable law 28 at the time of the official act of 19 February 2007, persons alleging a violation of their rights due to the exercise of direct administrative power and coercion could file a complaint with an independent administrative panel. Such persons could also file a complaint alleging a violation of their rights by administrative acts other than the exercise of power and coercion by security authorities. 29 Lastly, a complaint could be filed alleging a violation of the “Guidelines for interventions by police officers”. 30 For all these remedies, there was a uniform six-week period for filing the complaint. The period was calculated as beginning on the day on which the complainant became aware of the exercise of direct administrative power and coercion (and if he/she was prevented from making use of his or her right to file a complaint due to that exercise, on the day on which the obstacle ceased to exist). An appeal against the Independent Administrative Panel’s decision could be made to the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court. 31 In an appeal to the Constitutional Court, violations of fundamental rights caused by the Panel’s decision, as well as the (constitutional) unlawfulness of the laws and ordinances that served as a basis for the impugned decision, could be challenged. Moreover, individuals can directly challenge the (constitutional) unlawfulness of laws and ordinances with the Constitutional Court if that (constitutional) unlawfulness directly results in a violation of their rights. The Constitutional Court can refuse to deal with a complaint if there is insufficient prospect of success or if there is no expectation that a constitutional question would be clarified based on the challenged decision. The Administrative Court could refuse to hear the complaint if the decision did not depend on the determination of a question of law of fundamental relevance; this applied to administrative criminal proceedings only if a low fine had been imposed. 4.8 The State party submitted also that, were personal data processed by administrative authorities, the subject of those data could tur n to the Data Protection Commission, which decided on complaints of persons claiming an infringement of their right to secrecy or their right to correction or deletion. 31 4.9 The State party maintained that the communication was inadmissible under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol because the author had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in accordance with the national procedural provisions. 32 In particular, the author filed a complaint with the Independent Administrative Panel of Lower Austria as late as approximately 18 months after the official act of 19 February 2007. According to the legal situation at the time of the official act at issue, the period for filing complaints against acts of power and coercion was six weeks as at the day the author became aware of the exercise of that power and coercion. Since the author was directly affected and involved in the official act of __________________ 28 29 30 31 32 12/20 The State party referred to article 129 (a), para. 1 [2], of the Federal Constitutional Law, Federal Law Gazette No. 1930/1, as amended by Federal Law Gazette No. 5/2007; para. 67 (a) of the Code of General Administrative Procedure, Federal Law Gazette No. 51/1991, as amended by Federal Law Gazette vol. I, No. 10/2004; Security Police Act, section 88, para. 1, Federal Law Gazette No. 566/1991, as amended by Federal Law Gazette vol. I, No. 56/2006. Security Police Act, section 88, para. 2. Federal Law Gazette No. 266/1993; Security Police Act, section 89. Data Protection Act 2000, section 31, Federal Law Gazette vol. I, No. 165/1999, as amended by Federal Law Gazette vol. I, No. 57/2013. The State party referred to the Committee’s jurisprudence in communication No. 1/2003, B.-J. v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 14 July 2004, para. 8.6. 16-13831