CEDAW/C/64/D/67/2014 Austria in her complaints addressed to the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court. In a written submission of 21 August 2008 (that is, around 15 months after the statutory time limit had expired) the author, represented by her husband, filed a complaint before the Administrative Panel challenging the official act of 19 February 2007. She complained of a violation of several constitutionally guaranteed rights as well as of the “guidelines for interventions by police officers” (Federal Law Gazette No. 266/1993). She also requested a return to the previous state of proceedings regarding the expiry of the six -week time limit for complaints against police measures. By a decision of 5 May 2009, the Administrative Panel dismissed her request and rejected the complaint as being time barred on the grounds that it was not discernible that she had been prevented from filing the complaint in time. The author filed a complaint against the Adminis trative Panel’s decision with the Constitutional Court. By a decision of 23 February 2010, the Constitutional Court refused to hear the complaint, since it raised no constitutional questions and transmitted it for further consideration to the Administrativ e Court. By a decision of 20 March 2013, the Administrative Court also refused to deal with the complaint since the Administrative Panel had not deviated in its challenged decision from the Court’s case law. 4.3 The State party further submitted that, by a decision of 18 January 2008, the author was ordered to pay income tax for her activities as a prostitute for the years 2004 to 2006. Her appeal to the Independent Financial Senate was successful and the tax charge was set aside by a decision of 15 December 2008, since the author ’s activities were not liable to income tax. An official complaint filed against this decision by the Tax Office with the Administrative Court was unsuccessful (ruling of 25 January 2012). In the Administrative Court’s view, the author’s submission, namely that the sums received were negligible for her when pursuing the activities at issue, was of decisive relevance. Accordingly, the author ’s conduct was not financially motivated and did not give the impression of a commercial busin ess — therefore, no taxes had to be paid. A complaint filed by the author with the Data Protection Commission on 20 June 2013 against the Tax Office was dismissed by a decision of 6 September 2013; there was no electronic data storage regarding the author’s sex life. The electronic storage of other personal data in connection with the fiscal proceedings was, however, necessary in the light of a possible renewal of the Administrative Court proceedings. The author filed a complaint against that decision with the Constitutional Court. The proceedings before the Constitutional Court are still pending and thus subject to official secrecy in respect of third persons. Since the author did not make that complaint available to the Committee, the State party cannot comment thereon. 4.4 On 19 April 2010, the author lodged an official liability complaint against the Federal Government. She claimed compensation of the costs incurred by her in the tax proceedings, compensation for pain and suffering occasioned by the viol ation of her human rights and a finding that the Federal Government is liable for any future damage resulting from lasting effects of the alleged human rights violations. The official liability proceedings were terminated by mutual agreement: after the Fed eral Minister of the Interior, acting as the highest police organ, had paid part of the amount of compensation claimed by the author, without recognizing the author ’s claims, the author declared at a hearing on 23 April 2012 that she waived her claims for compensation regarding the alleged personal damage and her request for a finding that the Federal Government should be held liable for any future damage. 10/20 16-13831